Trump enters the stage

Meno2 · December 26, 2019, 3:27am

Kenneth Star thinks the Speaker is overreaching:

Nancy Pelosi is overreaching into the Senate’s power to convict, he says, by setting conditions into the procesiraal matters, namely delaying the fprwewarding of the impeachment.

Accorming to Start, such a mover certainly interferes with the process by which the Senate can conduct it’s business.

Ken Starr says the impeachment of President Trump…: youtu.be/Fy7B61vnf-8

Meno2 · December 26, 2019, 4:58pm

OPINION - POLITICS

Pelosi’s best move might be to keep impeachment in her pocket and not send it to the Senate

PUBLISHED THU, DEC 26 2019 8:00 AM EST

UPDATED 19 MIN AGO

US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi holds a press conference after the House passed Resolution 755, Articles of Impeachment Against President Donald J. Trump, at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on December 18, 2019. -

Saul Loeb | AFP | Getty Images

The House Democratic leadership has wanted no part of impeachment since the “blue wave” swept them back into power in the 2018 midterm elections.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi made this explicit earlier this year in an interview with The Washington Post Magazine. “I’m not for impeachment,” she said.

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”

Translated, what she meant was: in this political environment, impeachment will never be bipartisan. It will never get 67 votes “aye” votes in the Senate. So why put 25–35 vulnerable Democratic House members in marginal or pro-Trump districts in harm’s way? (More to the point: Why should she put her tenure as Speaker of the House at risk?) Why engage in a process that will enrage the President’s supporters and give him a rallying cry (“witch hunt”) for his re-election campaign? Why make it harder for Democratic Senate candidates running in states that Mr. Trump won?

Impeachment put a lot at risk and promised little if any, political reward. The only way to resolve the “Trump issue” (from her point of view) was to vote him out of office. Impeachment wasn’t helpful to that cause.

The Washington Post Magazine interview was the first of a number of attempts (both public and private) by Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership to shut down the impeachment “groundswell” on the left and in the media. Down the street, President Trump was doing everything he could to enrage the media and the Democratic Party’s “progressive” wing and in so doing, escalate their demands for impeachment proceedings. The intra-Democratic Party conflict, he and his handlers reasoned, would generate copious media coverage and highlight the party’s socialist insurgents.

A key piece of the president’s reelection effort is to make the Democratic Party’s left wing (“The Squad,” among others) the face of the Democratic Party. As White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney put it a while back, the Trump reelection message revolves around three “issues”: the economy, immigration and Democratic Party “socialism.” Engaging “the Squad” and other left-wing (preferably black) legislators has been a “go-to” tactic of Trump’s pre-season election campaign.

Trump miscalculated in thinking that, in the end, Pelosi could and would shut it down. It was a rookie mistake on Trump’s part; another example of how an absence of empathy leads to miscalculation. You can’t deal productively with someone like Pelosi if you don’t make an attempt to understand the politics of her position.

In the event, miscalculation left Trump with the ignominy of being only the third U.S. president in the nation’s history to be impeached. There was no way to spin that away. It was an “own goal” of epic proportions.

That said, the politics of the vote were (and remain) tricky. No one has any doubt, really, that the president did what he stands accused of doing. But 'persuadable" voters are not convinced that the charges warrant his removal from office and they were unnerved by the speed of the House’s “deliberations.” It didn’t seem deliberate at all. It seemed like a rush to judgement.

What does Pelosi do now?

For the moment, she’s waiting, using the Christmas break to give her caucus members a chance to take soundings in their districts. But the truth is she can’t really afford to wait. Removing the president of the United States from office doesn’t wait for constituent service. Trivial as our politics is and has become, there’s no way around the magnitude of what’s happened and what might happen next. Impeachment has global implications. It sets historic precedents. And the Democrats own it, for the moment, so it’s their job to resolve it or at least move it along.

Pelosi’s best option would be a “pocket veto.” Legislative leadership, of course, can’t execute a “pocket veto.” That’s an executive function. But something very much like a “pocket veto” would serve Pelosi and her party’s interests well.

She could say: “I’m not sending these articles of impeachment over to the Senate. There’s no point in doing so. The majority leader has made it clear that he has no interest in a ‘fair trial.’ There’s no point in wasting everyone’s time and taxpayer money to arrive at a decision that Republican senators have already made. Everyone, including each and every Republican member of the Senate, knows that President Trump did exactly what he stands accused of doing. And impeachment is a fact. So we’ll let it stand as is; a monument to the president’s dishonesty and corruption, to be contemplated and remembered by Americans for generations to come.”

Owie! That would light up the night sky over 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, no? The White House and the reelection campaign committee would erupt in a volcano of tweets and seething appearances on Fox News. God only knows who, aside from Pelosi, would be the target of Team Trump’s collective wrath.

But everyone else, or virtually everyone else, would accept Pelosi’s proposed political resolution with gratitude. Republican Senators would be happy to be rid of the dreary task of defending the president’s conduct. Democratic senators would no longer have to explain why what voters perceive as a felony is actually a capital crime. The “progressive caucus” might be upset for a time, but Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t play quarterly politics. She plays a long game, emphasizing yards gained and time of possession. She can bank the House vote on impeachment as a first down, which, for Team AOC, it was and is.

If AOC is OK with a Pelosi “pocket veto,” then her massive social media following will follow along. Which in turn will bring along all the other Democratic left-wingers and their media allies. House Democrats in marginal districts will be thrilled to have the issue die a quick death. And as an added bonus, the “Pelosi rebellion” will be counted, by any number of cable television chatterboxes, as a 'win-win" for the party’s two main factions: Pelosi’s authority remains intact, Team AOC made its points and advanced its cause. Harmony restored and a tricky issue shelved, the House Democratic majority in the 2020 general election will be (all-but) secured.

Pelosi was right about the politics of impeachment back in March. Democrats don’t need to convince voters who favor impeachment to vote Democratic. They’re already committed to doing just that. And Democrats will never convince voters committed to President Trump of anything, really. The 2020 election is about those that remain — “the persuadables.” Whoever persuades them wins.

Pelosi’s job is to guide her party toward its political advantages. Impeachment is not an advantage. It’s a 48%-to-48% issue. Health care is an advantage. Shoring up Social Security is an advantage. Climate change is an advantage. Gun control is an advantage. She wants the House of Representatives, especially the Republican members, debating those issues. Because every time House members do, it helps her party’s cause.

Don’t be surprised if she executes the congressional equivalent of a “pocket veto.” It’s a smart play. And she’s nobody’s fool.

John Ellis is the Editor of News Items and a former columnist

Meno2 · December 27, 2019, 12:03am

Beating Donald Trump in the 2020 election isn’t everything; it’s the only thing
Debating wine cellar fundraisers, free tuition and ‘Medicare for All’ won’t rid America of an unfit president: Our view
THE EDITORIAL BOARD | USA TODAY | 49 minutes ago

To the casual observer of the Democratic debates, it seems like candidates are spending a lot of time debating improbable ideas like free tuition — that is, when they are not arguing the appropriateness of holding fundraisers in wine caves.

While President Donald Trump is holding pep rallies in key battleground states, the Democrats are engaged in what looks at times like a squabble within an academic department.

Perhaps as a result, the ratings for the Democratic encounters have been slipping with each installment. To some degree, this is the inevitable outcome of a race pitting an incumbent against a large field of would-be challengers.

Focus on winning 2020
But there is also a warning in it: Few of the ideas being debated are getting much traction beyond Democratic true believers. And even many Democrats are ready to see some winnowing of the field in the early caucus and primary states.

This is a pretty good indication that the party’s voters should focus largely on one overriding issue: which of the candidates is best equipped to defeat Donald Trump next November.

Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Indiana, at the Democratic presidential debate on Dec. 19, 2019, in Los Angeles.
Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Indiana, at the Democratic presidential debate on Dec. 19, 2019, in Los Angeles.
JUSTIN SULLIVAN/GETTY IMAGES
OPPOSING VIEW: Voters want change, not centrism

In just a few short years, Trump has promoted the interests of U.S. foes, needlessly run up massive government debts, thwarted progress on climate change, done palpable harm to America’s health care system, and turned the once-proud party of Abe Lincoln and Ronald Reagan into a adulation cult.

Ridding the nation of his unfit leadership is far more important than who has the most extensive plan to hand out free money (we’re looking at you, Andrew Yang) or require everyone to get their health care through an expanded Medicare (Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders).

The Democrats need a nominee who can go toe-to-toe with Trump, explain to the electorate why he is so wrong in so many ways, and build a consensus on taking the nation in a new direction.

Practical proposals
This is not to say issues don’t matter. If the candidates merely criticized Trump and touted their own electability, they would come off as lacking substance. But the ideas and issues they present in the primaries need to be the kind that can garner widespread support in a general election — particularly in crucial states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

These would include practical proposals to preserve and expand health coverage, rebuild America’s standing in the world, adopt sounder fiscal policies and address climate change.

Meno2 · December 27, 2019, 7:26pm

youtu.be/XnGes2cdFwE

Messianic claim:

Related video: Donald Trump refused to say what his favourite Bible verse is after he claimed it was his ‘favourite book’

Trump shares claim he is ‘heaven sent’ and suggests Obama ‘kicked Jesus out’ of US

President’s post comes as administration records ‘historic lows’ for refugee resettlement

4 hours ago

Donald Trump has promoted a post claiming he is “heaven sent” and suggesting Barack Obama “kicked” Jesus out of the US in a string of tweets just days after Christmas.

The president spent some of his Friday evening retweeting praise for himself, including one post from January 2018 with a picture of a man who appears to be Jesus Christ and a caption saying: “Obama kicked me out. Trump invited me back.”

“I truly believe this man was heaven sent in order to save and protect the most gracious, benevolent, and in turn, prosperous country ever,” the caption to the post said, referring to the president.

Mr Trump’s decision to share the post follows a number of current and former Trump administration officials who have suggested the president was sent by God.

The suggestion about Jesus Christ, a man who is thought to have been from the Middle East, also comes as refugee resettlement in the US has dropped to “historic lows” during the Trump presidency.

Donald Trump celebrity president: A decade in two halves

Data from the State Department shows that the US is no longer the world’s top country for refugee admissions after substantial declines since Mr Trump’s inauguration, according to the Pew Research Centre.

The president added a comment of “Thank you!” to the post, which he has also shared on his Instagram account.

In November, Rick Perry, the US secretary of energy, described Mr Trump as the “chosen one” and said he had told the president that he was picked by God to rule.

It isn’t just Rick Perry who believes Donald Trump is the ‘chosen one’

Nikki Haley, the former US ambassador to the UN, followed Mr Perry with similar comments and claimed Mr Trump’s election showed “everything happens for a reason”.

“I think God sometimes places people for lessons and sometimes places people for change,” Ms Haley said.

“And you can look at everything that has happened [in Mr Trump’s presidency], and I think we are seeing a lot of changes, and I think we are gaining a lot of lessons.”

Sarah Sanders, the former White House press secretary, has also claimed God “wanted Donald Trump to become president”.

In August, Mr Trump promoted a claim that Jewish people in Israel love him as if he is the “King of Israel” and like he is “the second coming of God”.

However, the president’s spiritual credibility has been called into question in recent days.

Earlier this month, the religious magazine Christianity Today backed Mr Trump’s impeachment and called for evangelicals to examine their “unconditional loyalty” to his presidency.

The magazine’s stance provoked an angry response from the president, who accused the publication of being part of the “far left” on Twitter.

Meno2 · December 29, 2019, 4:55pm

Trump is in debt!

Huge debts up to his ears likened to his life, .to Russia, China, the German Banks, the IRS, and the enforcers.are nuclear triggers tied to economic and ideologically vested national intelligences.

These interests are tied sub marginally to residual modes of.operational proceeders, encompassing , a tightening web of international money flows, that have not changed since the bottom one of.seeking the source of money flow

Meno2 · December 31, 2019, 12:13am

Democracy Dies in Darkness

Explosive new revelations just weakened Trump’s impeachment defenses

By Greg Sargent

Opinion writer

December 30, 2019 at 9:58 AM EST

If Mitch McConnell is going to pull off his scheme to turn President Trump’s impeachment trial into a quick and painless sham with no witnesses, the Senate majority leader needs the story to be covered as a conventional Washington standoff — one that portrays both sides as maneuvering for advantage in an equivalently political manner.

But extraordinary new revelations in the New York Times about Trump’s corrupt freezing of military aid to Ukraine will — or should — make this much harder to get away with.

McConnell badly needs the media’s both-sidesing instincts to hold firm against the brute facts of the situation. If Republicans bear the brunt of media pressure to explain why they don’t want to hear from witnesses, that risks highlighting their true rationale: They adamantly fear new revelations precisely because they know Trump is guilty — and that this corrupt scheme is almost certainly much worse than we can currently surmise.

That possibility is underscored by the Times report, a chronology of Trump’s decision to withhold aid to a vulnerable ally under assault while he and his henchmen extorted Ukraine into carrying out his corrupt designs.

Sign up to receive Opinions columns like these in your inbox six days a week

The report demonstrates in striking detail that inside the administration, the consternation over the legality and propriety of the aid freeze — and confusion over Trump’s true motives — ran much deeper than previously known, implicating top Cabinet officials more deeply than we thought.

Among the story’s key points:

As early as June, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney worked to execute the freeze for Trump, and a top aide to Mulvaney — Robert Blair — worried it would fuel the narrative that Trump was tacitly aiding Russia.

Internal opposition was more forceful than previously known. The Pentagon pushed for the money for months. Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and then-national security adviser John Bolton privately urged Trump to understand that freezing the aid was not in our national interest.

Trump was unmoved, citing Ukraine’s “corruption.” We now know Trump actually wanted Ukraine to announce sham investigations absolving Russia of 2016 electoral sabotage and smearing potential 2020 opponent Joe Biden. The Times report reveals that top Trump officials did not think that ostensibly combating Ukrainian “corruption” (which wasn’t even Trump’s real aim) was in our interests.

Lawyers at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) worked to develop a far-fetched legal argument that Trump could exercise commander-in-chief authority to override Congress’ appropriation of the aid, to get around the law precluding Trump from freezing it.

Michael Duffey, a political appointee at OMB, tried to get the Pentagon to assume responsibility for getting the aid released, to deflect blame away from the White House for its own role in blocking it. This led a Pentagon official to pronounce herself “speechless.”

Duffey froze the aid with highly unusual bureaucratic tactics, refused to tell Pentagon officials why Trump wanted it withheld and instructed them to keep this “closely held.” (Some of this had already been reported, but in narrative context it becomes far more damning.)

It’s impossible to square all this with the lines from Trump’s defenders — that there was no pressure on Ukraine; that the money was withheld for reasonable policy purposes; and that there was no extortion because it was ultimately released. As the Times shows, that only came after the scheme was outed.

Multiple officials worried that the hold violated the law or worked extensively to skirt it. Others saw Trump’s actions as contrary to the national interest and never got a sufficient explanation for his motives. One top official executing the scheme tried to distance the White House from it and keep it quiet.

The Post’s View: Trump’s pardon of Gallagher just got even more appalling

What makes all this new information really damning, however, is that many of these officials who were directly involved with Trump’s freezing of aid are the same ones Trump blocked from appearing before the House impeachment inquiry.

This should make it inescapable that McConnell wants a trial with no testimony from these people — Democrats want to hear from Mulvaney, Bolton, Duffey and Blair — precisely because he, too, wants to prevent us from ever gaining a full accounting.

We now have a much clearer glimpse into the murky depths of just how much more these officials know about the scheme — and just how much McConnell and Trump are determined to make sure we don’t ever learn. That’s so indefensible that it might even breach the levee of the media’s both-sidesing tendencies.

( and /The Washington Post)

Trump’s defenders are taking a huge risk

Here’s another possibility. If McConnell does pull off a sham trial leading to a quick acquittal, more might surface later that, in retrospect, will get hung around Republicans’ necks and reverse-reveal just how corrupt their cover-up really was.

As George T. Conway III has noted, in such a scenario, Trump’s defenders will suffer blowback from “the very evidence they sought to suppress.”

This new report underscores the point. The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) is currently battling the administration over a tranche of OMB and Pentagon documents related to the aid freeze that CPI just obtained due to a court order. This is how Duffey’s emails surfaced, but much of what CPI has obtained has been blacked out.

CPI is asking a judge to lift the blackouts, and a ruling is expected as early as March. So it’s plausible that CPI could obtain a great deal of new information — showing even more clearly how worried officials were that Trump’s freeze was breaking the law — in only a few months.

That could come after Senate Republicans ran a sham trial and acquitted Trump. Do they really want to be on the hook for having suppressed such evidence, even in the face of a whole new round of deeply incriminating revelations?

Apparently they see that outcome as less risky than allowing witnesses to testify. Which again shows how worried they are about allowing the American people to gain a full accounting of Trump’s corruption.

RELATED STORIES

The Republican leadership argues that the case for impeachment is terminally weak and wants to expedite the trial of Trump to move on quickly to the election campaign. To convict Trump of either article, at least two-thirds of the Senate must vote to do so, meaning a number of Republicans must flip.

To achieve that, Democrats hope that the witnesses they want to testify, including Trump’s former national security adviser Ambassador John Bolton, and the as yet unreleased documents will deliver enough evidence to convince Republican Senators to turn against Trump.

US President Donald Trump speaks to the press outside the grand ballroom as he arrives for a New Year’s celebration at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, on December 31, 2019. Trump is impeached and faces a trial in the Senate.

The Economist/YouGov poll found that Americans were divided on Pelosi’s delay. Those who approved totaled 38 percent while slightly more disapproved at 39 percent. The remaining 23 percent were not sure.

“Remember when Pelosi was screaming that President Trump is a danger to our nation and we must move quickly,” Trump tweeted on New Year’s Eve.

“They didn’t get one Republican House vote, and lost 3 Dems. They produced no case so now she doesn’t want to go to the Senate. She’s all lies. Most overrated person I know!”

Just before Christmas, Pelosi wrote on Twitter: "The House cannot choose our impeachment managers until we know what sort of trial the Senate will conduct.

“President Trump blocked his own witnesses and documents from the House, and from the American people, on phony complaints about the House process. What is his excuse now?”

The headline of this article has been updated.

Meno2 · January 3, 2020, 12:25am

The New York Times

Christianity Today Editor Laments ‘Ethical Naïveté’ of Trump Backers

Mark Galli was overwhelmed by the response — both vocal criticism and quiet praise — to his editorial in a prominent evangelical magazine calling for President Trump’s ouster.

Mark Galli’s last day as editor in chief of Christianity Today, an evangelical magazine, is on Friday. He had already planned to retire before writing an editorial calling for President Trump’s removal.Credit…David Kasnic for The New York Times

By Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs

Jan. 2, 2020Updated 6:05 p.m. ET

People have been upset with Mark Galli before. As the editor in chief of Christianity Today, a prominent evangelical magazine, he has printed some controversial editorials. But the people he irks usually do not include the IT department of his own publication.

That is what happened when Mr. Galli published an explosive editorial on Dec. 19 arguing that President Trump should be removed from office. So many readers flocked to read the editorial online that the website crashed, overwhelming those whose job it was to keep it running.

Mr. Galli had been working for Christianity Today for two decades after being a Presbyterian pastor for about 10 years, first in Mexico City and later in Sacramento, Calif., but the response to the editorial was like nothing he had ever seen. The traffic to the website was 50-fold what it is on a typical day.

‘PROFOUNDLY IMMORAL’

Five of the editorial’s sharpest rebukes of the president.

Mr. Galli’s last day with the magazine will be Friday. He had announced his retirement in October, long before the editorial and the response to it.

In an interview with The New York Times on Thursday, he said he was shocked by the magnitude of the reaction to the editorial — but also by evangelicals’ willingness to stick by Mr. Trump for more than three years. The interview has been edited and condensed.

Did you ever expect the sort of reaction this editorial received?

Not in the least. On a very viral article, we might get 4,000 or 5,000 on the site at one time. Not only did this crash the site almost immediately, but when it came back on, there were between 15 and 17,000 people on our site for hours. I’ve kind of gotten in trouble with my IT department because they said, “Why didn’t you give us a heads up?” and I said, “I had no idea.”

Friday I came into the office, and the desk phone we’re speaking on now literally rang — this is not hyperbole — all day, and I did not pick it up once because I was also getting messages by email, text messages and calls on my cellphone.

There was quite a bit of criticism from evangelicals and others of the piece. What did you make of that opposition?

I was a little surprised that Donald Trump and then Franklin Graham thought it was worth commenting on. And it did strike me as a bit ironic that they both said that it wasn’t significant or going to make any difference. It makes you immediately think that they do think it’s significant, or they wouldn’t comment on it.

I suppose the thing that was most surprising, and which I’m still trying to wrap my head around, was the positive response. People wrote to me and said they had felt all alone and were waiting for someone in the evangelical leadership to say what the editorial said. I wish I could tell you that I had noticed that and wanted to respond to it, but I didn’t see that. There were a lot of people who were feeling alone and they’re not feeling that way now.

Despite that, of course, evangelicals as a bloc largely support President Trump. Is there anything Trump could do to lose that support?

I’ve been surprised by the ethical naïveté of the response I’m receiving to the editorial. There does seem to be widespread ignorance — that is the best word I can come up with — of the gravity of Trump’s moral failings. Some evangelicals will acknowledge he had a problem with adultery, but now they consider that a thing of the past. They bring up King David, but the difference is King David repented! Donald Trump has not done that.

Some evangelicals say he is prideful, abrasive and arrogant — which are all the qualities that Christians decry — but they don’t seem to grasp how serious it is for a head of state to talk like that and it does make me wonder what’s going on there.

Do you think evangelicals’ willingness to excuse Mr. Trump’s behavior will translate to a more broad willingness to forgive bad behavior by politicians, or does it seem to be Trump-specific?

I think his supporters would say it is limited to Trump. But I will say that some of his closest followers are, in a sense, being discipled by him. Mr. Trump’s typical response to a critic is to frame the entire conversation as a competition between success and failure. When the editorial published, the first response coming out of the mouth of some leading evangelicals was “That’s Christianity Yesterday” or “You’re a dying magazine.” They’re taking their cues on how to react in the public square from Donald Trump, whose basic response is to denigrate people.

What’s next for you? Do you plan to engage more with politics?

I’m planning to take advantage of the benefits of retirement: more time with my grandchildren, more time on the stream to do fly-fishing. If I can use religious language to talk about this, it does seem like providence has intervened in my life and made sure I’m not going to relax for the next few months.

I was planning to continue to write and comment, and this just put an exclamation point on it. I feel like I need to keep talking about things on my website and I’ve already been invited to write for The Los Angeles Times and The Guardian and I’m going to do that. I’m going to write as honestly and as charitably as I can about the movement that I’ve been a part of for 50 years.

Have your views about Mr. Trump changed since 2016? And who did you vote for then?

Like many, I was not happy with either candidate, and so I voted for a third-party candidate. And you’re about to ask me who that is, and I don’t remember. The most important thing is, I didn’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

We published one hard-hitting editorial in 2016 asking if voters had fallen into the sin of idolatry. After Trump was elected, I spent the first three years of his administration just trying to understand why conservatives and why very conservative evangelicals would vote for him and support him so enthusiastically.

The right and the left clearly wanted to excommunicate each other from the movement, so whenever I had the opportunity, I tried to get evangelicals on the left, center and right to have a reasonable conversation. I wanted to continue that when I sat down to write the editorial, but something in me clicked and I thought: That approach doesn’t work anymore. Given what we now know about what the president has done, we need to speak out more directly about this.

Do you view politics or religion differently than you did before Mr. Trump’s presidency?

I’m actually not a political person. I don’t follow political reporting too much. I find it caustic, both to the culture and to one’s own heart. I often say the most political things Christians do is, every Sunday, go to church and say “Jesus Christ is Lord.”

I’ve been thinking more deeply about what the relationship is between Christian faith and political life. I had drawn much more of a separation between politics and faith in my past, and I need to rethink that. I certainly don’t want to do what mainstream Christianity has done and make politics indistinguishable from faith — especially on the left, and now on the right. But is there a way to talk about our nation’s issues that is not merely partisan, but raises questions of ethics and morality and ideals?

Trump and Evangelicals

Christian Post Editor Resigns Over Editorial Defending Trump

Dec. 24, 2019

Evangelical Leaders Close Ranks With Trump After Scathing Editorial

Dec. 20, 2019

Evangelical Magazine Christianity Today Calls for Trump’s Removal

Dec. 19, 2019

Meno2 · January 3, 2020, 2:43pm

CONGRESS

Pelosi says Trump carried out strike on Iranian commander without authorization and she wants details
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the U.S. strike that killed the commander of Iran’s Quds Force “risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence.”

Jan. 3, 2020, 1:40 AM EST

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is calling on the Trump administration to immediately brief lawmakers on the U.S. airstrike that killed a top Iranian commander in Iraq and what the White House plans to do next.

The strike in Iraq was directed by President Donald Trump and killed Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s secretive Quds Force, the Defense Department announced Thursday night.

The move, which is likely to provoke retaliation from Iran, comes amid heightened tensions between the Trump administration and Tehran over rocket attacks aimed at coalition forces in Iraq. U.S. officials have said those attacks were likely carried out by Iranian-backed militias with links to the Quds Force.

“Tonight’s airstrike risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence. America — and the world — cannot afford to have tensions escalate to the point of no return,” Pelosi said in a statement late Thursday.

The strike was carried out without an “authorization for use of military force” against Iran and without the consultation of Congress, the speaker said.

“The full Congress must be immediately briefed on this serious situation and on the next steps under consideration by the Administration, including the significant escalation of the deployment of additional troops to the region,” Pelosi said.

This browser does not support the video element.

The Defense Department characterized the strike as “decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad” and said in a statement that Soleimani “was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.”

Several Republicans, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and Sen. Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, praised Trump’s move.

Graham said in a statement that Soleimani “had American blood on his hands” and welcomed what he called Trump’s “bold action against Iranian aggression.”

“To the Iranian government: If you want more, you will get more,” Graham said.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said the airstrike that killed top Iranian general was done with Congressional authorization. Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images file
Former National Security Adviser John Bolton, a longtime hawk on Iran, tweeted his “congratulations” to the Trump administration for the strike and said he hoped “this is the first step to regime change in Tehran.”

Meanwhile, Ari Fleischer, who served as President George W. Bush’s press secretary, said on Fox News that he hoped Soleimani’s death would be cheered in the same way Osama Bin Laden’s was.

Soleimani and the Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and other coalition forces and orchestrated attacks on bases in Iraq within the last several months, including a Dec. 27 attack that killed a U.S. contractor and wounded several service members, the Defense Department said.

Democrats were quick to condemn Soleimani on Friday but expressed concern about the consequences of his death and what they said was a lack of domestic oversight.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, tweeted that Soleimani “was responsible for unthinkable violence and world is better off without him.”

“But Congress didn’t authorize and American people don’t want a war with Iran,” Schiff said. “All steps must now be taken to protect our forces against the almost inevitable escalation and increased risk.”

Ben Rhodes, former deputy national security adviser under President Barack Obama, questioned Trump’s ability to handle the potential unknown consequences from the airstrike.

Iran’s Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, called the U.S. strike an “act of international terrorism” and an assassination. He said in a tweet that it was an “extremely dangerous & a foolish escalation.”

“The US bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism,” Zarif said.

In addition, at least two Congressional Republicans called on the Trump administration to provide more details to Congress on its strategy for the region or any further steps.

Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, in a statement commended the strike but said that the administration must be prepared for possible retaliation and should “consult closely with Congress on any next steps should the situation escalate.”

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, also pushed for more information from the White House. “It’s imperative that the US & our allies articulate & pursue a coherent strategy for protecting our security interests in the region. I will be pressing the Administration for additional details in the days ahead,” he tweeted.

Democratic presidential hopefuls raised concerns about the strike.

Former Vice-President Joe Biden said that while “no American will mourn” Sulimani’s death, killing him was a “huge escalatory move in an already dangerous region.” He said in a statement that Trump had “tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said that although Suleiman “was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans,” the strike was a reckless move.

“Our priority must be to avoid another costly war,” Warren tweeted.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, tweeted 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.”

Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, tweeted Thursday night: “We have a president who has no strategic plan when it comes to Iran and has only made that region less stable and less safe.”

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said Soleimani “was responsible for directing Iran’s destabilizing actions in Iraq, Syria, and throughout the Middle East, including attacks against U.S. forces,” but she also said the immediate focus is on protecting U.S. military and diplomatic personnel in Iraq and the region.

“The Administration needs to fully consult with Congress on its decision-making, response plans, and strategy for preventing a wider conflict,” she tweeted.

In addition to Soleimani, the deputy of the militias known as the Popular Mobilization Units in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was also killed, according to Iraqi state television and the PMU.

He had been accused of plotting attacks on the United States since the 1980s. He was convicted in absentia and sentenced to death by Kuwait for his role in the 1983 attacks on the U.S. and French embassies in Kuwait, in which five Kuwaitis were killed.

Phil Helsel is a reporter for NBC l
News.

LIVE
Updated
1 minute ago
News > World > Middle East
Iran news – live: Trump claims Qassem Soleimani was ‘plotting to kill’ Americans, and tells US citizens to leave Iraq after killing of Iran’s top general
-------- -------- -------- ------'-

{ At the very least, a minimal view can be held that there is internal politocal expediency in the move to impress a naive public, that there is no politocal connection, especially that it is happening when a impeachment judgement by the senate is impending, and that there was not even any kind of notice to Congress}*

*{ } are my own narratives.

&everyone knows whom scaramucci called a paranoid schizophrenic. Well, not everyone, will sell their soul in a Faustian bargain, who will not take themselves out, for fear of, without the will not to further unravel.

youtu.be/XEiUZ-MU4rQ

Course probably was dropped for that reason

youtu.be/ywhi4Fry-DA

youtu.be/vN4Jrrcl-ks

Meno2 · January 4, 2020, 3:33pm

The Guardian - Back to home

‘Incredibly dangerous’: Jeremy Hunt reacts to Qassem Suleimani assassination – video
Jeremy Hunt
Hunt: US confrontation with Iran is ‘dangerous game of chicken’
Comments come as Foreign Office cautions against all but essential travel to Iraq and Iran

Simon Murphy
@murphy_simon
Sat 4 Jan 2020 06.27 EST

Jeremy Hunt has called the US’s escalating confrontation with Iran over the assassination of Tehran’s top general an “incredibly dangerous game of chicken”.

He made his comments as the Foreign Office updated its travel advice on Saturday, warning British nationals against going to Iraq apart from essential travel to the Kurdistan region in the north of the country. The government is also urging Britons to avoid all but essential travel to Iran.

It has also updated its travel advice for Lebanon and urged British nationals in the country to remain vigilant and issued similar travel advice for British nationals in Israel, Afghanistan and Palestine.

As concerns grow about reprisals over the killing of Qassem Suleimani in a US drone strike in Baghdad, the former foreign secretary urged the UK to use its position as a key US ally to push Donald Trump to take a more consistent foreign policy approach.

US failing to give UK warning of military strikes, says senior MP
Suleimani, who spearheaded Tehran’s military operations in Iraq and Syria as commander of the elite Quds force, was considered the second most powerful figure in Iran. The 62-year-old, who was implicated in tens of thousands of civilian deaths, was killed on Friday morning when his vehicle was targeted by a drone as local allies from the Popular Mobilisation Forces drove him from the airport.

Hunt, who served as foreign secretary before standing down in July after losing the Tory leadership race to Boris Johnson, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “It’s an incredibly dangerous game of chicken going on at the moment because both sides have calculated that the other side cannot afford and doesn’t want to go to war.

“So they are doing increasingly extreme things, not just the assassination of general Suleimani, but the bombing of the Saudi oil facility last September is another example of this. And, of course, it is true that neither side wants to go to war but it’s also true that both sides are compelled to react when things like this happen and that is the risk in the current situation.”

Loading video
Footage shows aftermath of US airstrike that killed top Iranian general Qassem Suleimani – video
Hunt said it was impossible to predict whether the reaction to the killing would be immediate or play out longer term. “It’s clear that they [Iran] will have to react and that will have been calculated by the United States,” he said. “This is a very difficult situation for allies of the United States, like ourselves, because I happen to be someone who believes the world is safer when America is involved in what’s happening beyond its shores.

“The UK cannot afford to be neutral if we want to be a serious global player but this is a very, very risky situation and I think that the job we have to do is as one of the US’s closest allies is to use our influence to argue for more consistent US policy. Because sometimes the US seems torn between a desire to appear strong and decisive and influential across every region in the world and the other desire, which is to get its troops home, to reduce the risk to American lives on the ground and to concentrate on the big power competition with China.

“And it’s those two conflicting forces that are tugging at the president and that makes people miscalculate because I’m sure, Suleimani thought that the US might not react to some of the things he had been plotting and planning and that was, of course, a big miscalculation. And it’s those miscalculations that are dangerous.”

Asked whether he believed Trump miscalculated by ordering the strike, Hunt said: “Only time will tell. But, as I say, I would rather an America that was active and involved in the region. Despite being known for his rhetoric, actually what has characterised Trump is his caution in deploying troops.”

Hunt said the apparent decision by the US not to inform the UK in advance of the strike was not in the spirit of its relationship as a close ally. He said: “Well, I think it’s regrettable because, as one of the US’s closest allies, I think it’s an important aspect of that relationship that there are no surprises in the relationship.

“But it may also have been because they didn’t want to put us in a difficult position of asking us to make a judgment whether we agreed or not with what was done. I think our relationship with the US is one where we shouldn’t overestimate our influence, but we shouldn’t underestimate it either.”

Jeremy Corbyn has written to the prime minister, who has been on holiday on the private Caribbean island of Mustique, calling for an urgent meeting of the privy council to discuss whether the strike had heightened the risk of a terrorist attack in the UK.

In his letter, the Labour leader asked if the UK had spoken to the UN to discuss consequences for peace and security and what measures had been taken to ensure the safety of UK nationals.

I’ve written to Boris Johnson requesting an urgent Privy Council briefing and answers to questions following the US assassination of Qassem Suleimani. pic.twitter.com/kOw36b6Ex2

— Jeremy Corbyn

Meno2 · January 4, 2020, 3:39pm

Protests planned across US to condemn Trump administration actions in Iraq, Iran

GRACE HAUCK | USA TODAY | 1 hour ago

CHICAGO – More than 40 demonstrations were planned across the U.S. Saturday to protest the Trump administration’s killing of a top Iranian general and decision to send about 3,000 more soldiers to the Middle East.

The protests are being spearheaded by Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER), a U.S.-based anti-war coalition, in conjunction with more than a dozen organizations. Demonstrations were expected to protest outside the White House, in New York City’s Times Square and more.

Another international protest is expected at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate.

“The targeted assassination and murder of a central leader of Iran is designed to initiate a new war. Unless the people of the United States rise up and stop it, this war will engulf the whole region and could quickly turn into a global conflict of unpredictable scope and potentially the gravest consequences,” the organization said on its website.

Timeline: How tensions escalated with Iran since Trump withdrew US from nuclear deal

Organizers could not say how many people were expected to attend the protests, but Facebook events suggest that hundreds of people planned to participate. Nearly 300 people indicated interest in a Facebook event for a protest in Madison, Wisconsin, along with nearly 200 people for protests in both Chicago and Burlington, Vermont.

“We’re having the protest to say no to war and to bring the troops home from Iraq,” said Anamaria Meneses, an organizer with the Justice Center en El Barrio, ANSWER’s New York City branch. “Our tax dollars shouldn’t be spent on killing people abroad. We should stand against senseless wars.”

ANSWER’s national headquarters did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The ANSWER coalition formed in the wake of 9/11, organizing demonstrations against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that drew hundreds of thousands of protesters. While it has since led some of the biggest and most successful protests in the U.S., the coalition is not without its critics. Some groups have accused the coalition of supporting anti-Semitism; others have scrutinized its approach to supporting the rights of undocumented immigrants.

The protests come after several days of escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran that started with the killing of an American contractor.

Democrats warn against ‘march’ to war: Trump orders killing of Qasem Soleimani

It’s also the latest in a broader beef between the two nations, including President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear pact in 2018 and subsequent sanctions he imposed on Iran in order to make them come to a new deal.

Thousands of Iranians protested against the U.S. airstrike in the nation’s capital, Friday, while some Iraqis sang and danced in Baghdad.

Contributing: Nicholas Wu, USA TODAY.

Protesters demonstrate over the U.S. airstrike in Iraq that killed Iranian Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qasem Soleimani in Tehran, Iran, Jan. 3, 2020. Iran has vowed “harsh retaliation” for the U.S. airstrike near Baghdad’s airport that killed Tehran’s top general and the architect of its interventions across the Middle East, as tensions soared in the wake of the targeted killing.

VAHID SALEMI, AP

Baghdad protests break out outside US embassy following deadly airstrikes

Originally Published 4 hours ago

Updated 1 hour ago

Meno2 · January 5, 2020, 2:23pm

Skepticism mounts over evidence of ‘imminent’ threat that Trump says justified Soleimani killing

By Zachary Cohen, CNN

Updated 8:37 AM EST, Sun January 05, 2020

l

Washington (CNN)Top US national security officials continue to defend the Trump administration’s claim that it killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in response to an impending threat to American lives, but the lack of evidence provided to lawmakers and the public has fueled lingering skepticism about whether the strike was justified.

President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and top military officials have offered similar explanations for targeting Soleimani, citing an “imminent” threat from his plans to carry out what Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley called a “significant campaign of violence” against the US in the coming days, weeks or months.

But questions have continued to swirl in recent days about the imminence of such Iranian attacks, whether the administration fully considered the fallout from such a strike against Soleimani, and if an appropriate legal basis was established for the presidential authorization of lethal force.

How Trump’s decision unfolded to kill a top Iranian general

A Republican congressional source familiar with the administration’s decision to strike Soleimani acknowledged that in the past the President “has been reluctant to take military action” in this case, the killing of an American contractor, the wounding of others, and the subsequent embassy protests “crossed his line.” His advisers also pointed out to the President that if he “didn’t respond now, they (Iran) will continue to cross it.”

“I am very confident he was not reluctant,” said the source. When Trump finally gets ready to act, they added, “you can’t out escalate him.”

CNN has previously reported that there was internal debate over the decision and work behind the scenes to develop a legal argument before the operation was carried out.

After a meeting Sunday in Mar-a-Lago where President Donald Trump was briefed by senior members of his national security team on options regarding Iran, some officials emerged surprised the President chose to target Soleimani, according to a source familiar with the briefing.

The officials who briefed Trump included Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Pompeo, National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien and Milley.

The source said that some aides expected Trump to pick a less risky option, but once presented with the choice of targeting Soleimani he remained intent on going forward.

Failure to connect the dots

Since that time, the US has provided few details about those specific threats posed by Soleimani and failed to clearly outline the legal underpinnings.

The administration has failed to connect the dots in a way that provides a clear picture of an imminent threat and that argument has been obscured by inconsistent messaging from US officials.

One thing that has become relatively clear is that the operation to take out Soleimani did not hinge on some kind of golden opportunity to target the Quds force commander, unlike the missions that killed Osama bin Laden and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Some information has surfaced.

A source briefed on the latest intelligence told CNN that before the strike, specific information showed Iranian surface to air missiles and other military weaponry that the US had been watching, were moving in on at least two US air bases, as well as US embassies in the region.

Dems question order to kill Iranian military leader. Trump hasn’t publicly explained his reasoning

Additionally, the source said that the situation was different because the US had advanced notice of his plans to kill Americans and that the previous reason not to kill him has gone away – fear that it could cause the IRGC to specifically target Americans.

O’Brien made the case Friday that the strike was prompted by intelligence related to Soleimani’s movements coupled with ongoing attacks that he was planning against US diplomats and military personnel.

“Soleimani was in the Middle East, in Iraq, and traveling around the Middle East. He had just come from Damascus, where he was planning attacks on American soldiers, airmen, Marines, sailors, and against our diplomats. So this strike was aimed at disrupting ongoing attacks that were being planned by Soleimani, and deterring future Iranian attacks, through their proxies or through the IRGC Quds Force directly, against Americans. As President Trump said today, this action was taken to stop a war, not to start a war,” he said.

When asked by a reporter if the threat was “imminent,” Milley responded Friday saying, “absolutely,” but defined the time frame as days and maybe weeks.

He also warned that attacks could still happen, meaning the threat was not eliminated by killing Soleimani.

One Republican congressional source, when asked about whether there was intelligence that attacks were imminent, said there was “no doubt he was there to plan attacks against the US,” referring to Soleimani.

Trump administration warns Congress Iran could retaliate against US ‘within weeks’

Soleimani was under frequent surveillance by the US intelligence community, according to a senior administration official.

“Capturing intel from this guy would be a top priority,” the official said. Counterintelligence officials were routinely monitoring his movements, gathering information on who he was meeting with and what he was doing as he moved around the region. The official said he was definitely not in a secure undisclosed location like bin Laden and Baghdadi.

That kind of visibility gave the intelligence community a multitude of options for taking out Soleimani. This factor would obviously be of great use to the intelligence community were Soleimani determined to be moving toward an imminent attack on US interests.

This official, however, could not confirm whether that was the case prior to the Soleimani operation.

Lawmaker doubts

Some lawmakers have said that the information provided in classified settings last week painted an incomplete picture, prompting more questions about whether the threats cited by the administration meet the legal standard of “imminent.”

One Democratic source who was briefed Friday by administration officials said the information offered was “absolutely unconvincing” as far as proving there was an imminent threat and Democratic lawmakers have raised similar concerns.

In an interview with CNN Friday, Democratic Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico said more than once that he does not believe an attack on the United States was imminent as President Donald Trump and other top administration officials have said.

“My staff was briefed by a number of people representing a variety of agencies in the United States government and they came away with no feeling that there was evidence of an imminent attack,” Udall said, adding he believed the President is only saying an attack was imminent to justify killing Soleimani.

Trump and Rouhani trade warnings after killing of top general

Still, the US military remains comfortable with calling Soleimani’s potential plan imminent, a US defense official told CNN Saturday.

“It all depends on what you call imminent,” the official said, “but we believe he was in the final stages” of ordering attacks when he visited Beirut and Damascus in the days before he was killed."

The official added that while they continue to believe the intelligence showed Soleimani was planning multiple attacks at multiple locations, they do not have absolute detailed evidence of everything he was trying to execute.

Separately, a senior defense official told CNN there were multiple intelligence indicators that he was continuing to plan attacks. A significant turning point came when the US contractor was killed a week ago, the senior official said. “The intelligence may be no different of him (Soleimani) planning” attacks as he had in the past, but this was different because an American had been killed, added the Republican congressional source.

Another US official hedged, saying said the threat posed by the attacks Soleimani was accused of planning was “pretty imminent”.

The official added, when asked if Soleimani was needed to be alive for these threats and plans to be executed in the same way that he planned them, that after his death “things will change.”

Killing of American contractor crossed line for Trump, source says

Trump’s assertion that the strike was meant to “avoid a war” and claims by administration officials that the operation was intended to de-escalate have also prompted confusion. However, a source familiar with the administration’s thinking told CNN that those comments offer some insight into what the intention behind the attack was.

This source said the argument for targeting Soleimani, rather than Iranian assets, centers around the idea that it was a preemptive move intended to de-escalate the situation by deterring any plans to attack American embassies or bases.

The reasoning behind this, the same source told CNN, is that if Iran were to fire on a US base or embassy, it would trigger a large-scale military response by the US, so by killing Soleimani, the hope was that it would cause the Iranians to change their behavior.

Aim to reestablish a deterrent?

But that rationale may betray the administration’s true goal of reestablishing a deterrent against Iran – a step national security officials have long said was necessary but does not necessarily provide evidence of an imminent attack as required for the President to legally authorize lethal force.

A separate US official raised additional questions about the motive for the strike, telling CNN it had presidential authorization at this level and they opted for a preemptive option after the previous moves of maximum pressure didn’t change the Iranian pattern of behavior.

Former CIA director David Petraeus seemed to also conclude that the objective of the strike was deterrence in a recent interview with Foreign Policy.

“The reasoning seems to be to show in the most significant way possible that the US is just not going to allow the continued violence—the rocketing of our bases, the killing of an American contractor, the attacks on shipping, on unarmed drones—without a very significant response,” he said.

Trump warns Iran if it hits any Americans or American assets ‘we have targeted 52 Iranian sites’

“Many people had rightly questioned whether American deterrence had eroded somewhat because of the relatively insignificant responses to the earlier actions. This clearly was of vastly greater importance. Of course it also, per the Defense Department statement, was a defensive action given the reported planning and contingencies that Soleimani was going to Iraq to discuss and presumably approve,” Petraeus added.

But Petraeus’ comment noting the Pentagon’s assertion that the strike was defensive underscores the confusion caused by the administration’s shifting legal justifications for the operation and failure to explain its definition of “imminent.”

Democrat Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland also told CNN that one of his representatives was at the Friday briefing and said “nothing that came out of the briefing changed my view that this was an unnecessary escalation of the situation in Iraq and Iran.”

Van Hollen went on to say: “While I can’t tell you what was said, I can tell you, I have no additional information to support the administration’s claim that this was an imminent attack on Americans.”

CNN’s Kevin Liptak, Barbara Starr, Jim Acosta, Pamela Brown, Nck Paton Walsh and Jamie Gangel contributed to this report.

{Two logical systems at play

The meaning of collusion

The optics of the popular front drives trump, with a reactive search for meaningful yet hollow references to the basis of collusive and swampish images of what America echoes in it’s post WW2 days. That mirror started to crack way back in the sixties, in the infantile stage of its manifold superiority, which became fixed into it’s adolescence. However, it had short tenure for lasting imperium for it lacked the eidectic tendency for post modern residency.

That belonged to ancient civilizations of history. Now its coming home to roost, overcoming it with a terror.

The optics as phenomenal presence of familial meaning, is beset by internal dynamics, because the politocal presence and its progenitor lost the history of their mutual imterrelation.

That nexus lost the hidden dialectic between its actual and it’s remote function as a modus operandi in universal politocal affairs. The whole structure of the dynamic of this relations is on hold, as the unanswered question remains , what new definitions is that state, that epoch is capable to be sustained in a hidden future?}

The derivitive of none system of logic, has become an optical illusion , the resemblances to meaning broken, while the other one has lost its deductible glory}

In fact the scepter that hung in the air prior to WW2 has not diminished and Obama was right in his neutral attitude toward international world affairs, and the damgerousnstamdoff standoff has been prematurely directed.

The best of it is that Trump is a reactionary whose logic tries to reduce the now irreducible and colluded state of affairs into a vastly less progressive political economy of the US, while feeding that hunger with personal ambitions of his own.

That is explosive and he is far from being a continental politician, & he forgets the importance of the French leaders , cut to Jefferson, how that shaped the Constitution. And that goes for the short sighted Republican Party as well.}

Meno2 · January 5, 2020, 4:21pm

Meno_ wrote:

{The best of it is that Trump is a reactionary whose logic tries to reduce the now irreducible and colluded state of affairs into a vastly less progressive political economy of the US, while feeding that hunger with personal ambitions of his own.

That is explosive and he is far from being a continental politician, & he forgets the importance of the French leaders , cut to Jefferson, how that shaped the Constitution. And that goes for the short sighted Republican Party as well.}*

*my comments

Meno2 · January 5, 2020, 6:53pm

LIVEUpdated2 minutes ago

News > World > Middle East

Iran news – live: Iraq votes to expel US troops as Iranian MP says ‘we can attack the White House itself’ amid vows of retaliation after Trump threat to bomb civilian sites

Follow here for the latest updates

Andy Gregory

2 minutes ago

Donald Trump has prompted further condemnation after he threatened to strike 52 targets, some apparently civilian sites, if Iran retaliates over the US assassination of military commander Qassem Soleimani.

As bombs fell near the US embassy in Baghdad, the US president was labelled a “monster” and accused of plotting war crimes after promising swift retribution at high level targets “important to Iranian culture”.

Meanwhile, the Iranian parliament opened with politicians chanting “death to America”, as Iraq also held an emergency session in the face of pressure to expel the thousands of US troops stationed there to prevent an Isis resurgence.

KEY POINTS

Iraq votes to expel foreign troops

MP claims Iran can ‘attack the White House itself’

UK foreign secretary backs Trump’s ‘right’ to kill Soleimani

Trump accused of threatening war crimes

Iran promises ‘crushing and powerful’ retaliation

3 minutes ago

Ceremony to honour Soleimani in Tehran ‘cancelled due to mass turnout’

Sunday night’s ceremony for Soleimani at Tehran’s Grand Mosalla mosque has been cancelled, after the huge number of mourners delayed the arrival of the late military commander’s body to Tehran, AFP reported the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as saying.

“Considering the glorious, intense and million-man presence of the revolutionary people of Mashhad in the ceremony to bid farewell to Islam and Iran’s great general Qasem Soleimani and since the program is still continuing … it is not possible to hold the event in Tehran,” the Guards said.

Mourners were advised to attend an alternative ceremony planned at the University of Tehran on Monday.

Andy.Gregory

5 January 2020 16:54

34 minutes ago

‘There will be dead Americans’: Former CIA chief issues warning to Trump as Iran crisis deepens

Michael Morell, a former acting and deputy CIA director, said the killing of Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani would spark a “harsh retaliation” from the Iranian government, and that US citizens would be targeted, Clark Mindock reports.

“Soleimani was an evil genius. He had a lot of American blood on his hands. The world is a better place without him. The problem is that comes at a very high cost,” Mr Morell, who served during Barack Obama’s presidency, told CBS.

"Number one, there will be dead Americans, dead civilian Americans, as a result of this. Possibly over the next few days in any place where Iran has its proxies, Iraq is the most likely place, but also Lebanon, Bahrain, other places in the Middle East.”

‘There will be dead Americans’ after Trump’s order to kill Iran leader, says former CIA chief

Andy.Gregory

5 January 2020 16:21

49 minutes ago

Pompeo insists assassination was justified

“Senior leadership had access to all of the intelligence,” Mr Pompeo told ABC. There was no scepticism. I think General Miller used the term ‘we would have been culpably negligent had we not taken this strike’.

“The intelligence assessment made clear that no action - allowing Soleimani to continue his plotting and his planning, his terror campaign - created more risk than taking the action that we took last week.”

When pressed on Donald Trump’s threat to bomb cultural sites – which many insist would constitute war crimes, Mr Pompeo said the US will “behave lawfully”.

Andy.Gregory

5 January 2020 16:06

57 minutes ago

Helicopter footage purports to show vast scale of mourning in Iran

Andy.Gregory

5 January 2020 15:58

1 hour ago

Trump’s wisdom in Soleimani assassination questioned further as Iraq moves to expel US troops

Veteran diplomat and president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, says the US departure from Iraq will lead to greater Iranian influence in the country.

David Corn of Mother Jones and MSNBC points out that Donald Trump got his wishes for US withdrawal, albeit perhaps not in the way anyone expected.

Meanwhile, George Conway, husband of Kellyanne, Mr Trump’s counsellor has denounced the president as a “sociopath” in response to an observation about the shortsightedness of his decision to assassinate Soleimani

In response to expulsion vote, Iraqi politician and militia leader calls for US ‘humiliation’

It appears some in Iraq are not content with the non-binding resolution to expel foreign forces from the country, notably a militia leader who, in the wake of Soleimani’s assassination, called for dormant anti-US military groups to prepare “to protect Iraq”. Reuters reports:

Populist Iraqi Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution calling on the government to end foreign troop presence did not go far enough and called on local and foreign militia groups to unite.

“I consider this a weak response insufficient against American violation of Iraqi sovereignty and regional escalation,” Sadr, who leads the largest bloc in parliament, said in a letter to the assembly read out by a supporter.

Sadr said a security agreement with the United States should be cancelled immediately, the US embassy should be closed down, US troops must be expelled in a humiliating manner, and communication with the US government should be criminalised.

And in perhaps the most significant sign of the longstanding tensions Donald Trump has exacerbated, the militia leader continues:

“Finally, I call specifically on the Iraqi resistance groups and the groups outside Iraq more generally to meet immediately and announce the formation of the International Resistance Legions,” he said.

Andy.Gregory

5 January 2020 15:42

1 hour ago

Iraq votes to expel foreign troops

At an emergency parliamentary session, Iraqi politicians have voted in favour of a resolution telling the government to end the presence of foreign troops in Iraq, and ensure they not use its land, air, and waters for any reason.

“The government commits to revoke its request for assistance from the international coalition fighting Islamic State due to the end of military operations in Iraq and the achievement of victory,” the resolution read.

“The Iraqi government must work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason.”

Parliament resolutions, unlike laws, are non-binding to the government, but Iraqi prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi had earlier called on parliament to end foreign troop presence.

Some 5,200 US troops are reported to be stationed in Iraq, with America announcing the deployment of an additional 3,000 to the region following the killing of Soleimani.

Yesterday, Nato suspended its operations in Iraq, where it had been assisting Iraqi troops in preventing the resurgence of Isis.

Iraq complains to UN about American drone strikes

Iraq’s foreign ministry has lodged official complaints with the United Nations secretary general and Security Council over the airstrikes that killed Soleimani and several Iraqi milita leaders.

The complaint is about “American attacks and aggression on Iraqi military positions and the assassination of Iraqi and allied high level military commanders on Iraqi soil,” the ministry said in a statement.

It described the attacks as “a dangerous breach of Iraqi sovereignty and of the terms of US presence in Iraq” and called on the Security Council to condemn them.

In the immediate aftermath of the assassination, Mr Abdul-Mahdi warned that it was “a dangerous escalation that will light the fuse of a destructive war in Iraq, the region, and the world.”

If you are travelling in the Middle East, or have imminent plans to visit the region, here’s a must-read article from The Independent’s veteran travel correspondent Simon Calder.

As the Iran crisis escalates, is it safe to travel to Dubai and the Middle East?

Changing planes in Dubai, Doha or Abu Dhabi? Holiday in the UAE or Oman? On a cruise to or from the Gulf

Here’s some footage of the start of Iran’s parliamentary session today, in which politicians began by chanting “death to America”.

Tonight, Iranian politicians are expected to meet to discuss the next step of their commitment to the 2015 nuclear deal.

Hezbollah says Soleimani assassination marks new phase in Middle East’s history

Referring to the date of Soleimani’s killing, the group’s leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said it was a “date separating two phases in the region … it is the start of a new phase and new history not just for Iran or Iraq but the whole region”.

He was speaking at the start of a rally in the Hezbollah-controlled southern suburbs of Beirut to commemorate Soleimani.

Criticism over Boris Johnson’s silence on the Iranian crisis continues to roll in, as Dominic Raab sparked fears of the government’s intentions by citing Donald Trump’s “right to self-defence” in ordering the killing of Soleimani.

And an interesting observation from Carole Cadwalladr of The Observer:

Speaking to Andrew Marr, Mr Raab insisted the PM had been in “constant contact”, to discuss the crisis, adding: “What really matters is that there is a very clear strategy and message.

“There has not been a vacuum at all – the prime minister has been in charge.”

Andy.Gregory

Iran to decide commitment to nuclear deal tonight, foreign ministry spokesperson says

“Tonight, there will be a very important meeting to decide about our next nuclear step and the implementation of the deal … considering the recent threats [by America] it should be underlined that in politics, all developments and threats are linked to each other,” said spokesperson Abbas Mousavi, according to state news agency IRNA.

In reaction to the US policy of “maximum pressure” and punishing sanctions since Donald Trump pulled out of the nuclear agreement in 2018, Iran has taken several actions in violation of the deal, involving the production of materials that could be used to create nuclear weapons.

Iran has warned that it will further decrease its commitments if European parties fail to shield Tehran from US penalties. In November, Iran gave Britain, France and Germany a third 60-day deadline to salvage the deal.

On Saturday, French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian spoke with his counterparts in Germany and China, before issuing a public statement calling on Iran to “avoid any further measure of violation of the Vienna Agreement”.

The Independent’s international correspondent Borzou Daragahi reported Iran’s claims in November it had amassed 500kg of enriched uranium, more than the 300kg limit set by the nuclear deal, and was producing enriched uranium at a rate of six kilograms per day.

Around 1,100 kilograms of reactor-grade uranium would be required to produce enough highly enriched fissile material for a single nuclear weapon.

Here’s a visual of the Iranian parliamentary session as politicians chanted “death to America”, and the speaker warned: “Mr Trump, this is the voice of Iranian nation. Listen.”

EPA/ICANA NEWS AGENCY HANDOUT

Elsewhere in Tehran, angry mourners burned American and Israeli flags.

And in the city of Ahvaz, tens of thousands of mourners turned out as Soleimani’s coffin was paraded through the streets.

Andy.Gregory

5 January 2020 13:13

3 hours ago

While Trump’s usual allies have defended the seemingly reckless decision to kill Soleimani, he faced criticism from one unusual source last night – Fox News’ Tucker Carlson.

Andy.Gregory

5 January 2020 13:02

As Dominic Raab says Trump had a right to self-defence, scepticism is mounting over US claims of an ‘imminent’ threat

According to Middle East analyst Rukmini Callimachi, US officials briefed after the drone strike on Soleimani have contradicted official claims that by killing the Iranian general, America averted an “imminent” attack.

Ms Callimachi, who reports for the New York Times and provides analysis for NBC, said one official had described the justification for the “chaotic” strike as “razor thin”.

Echoing similar reports elsewhere, the official said that after the attack on an Iraqi base which killed an American defence contractor, Mr Trump was given several options for retaliation, of which killing Suleimani was the “far out option”.

Despite alleged fury at the killing of the US contractor, Mr Trump is said to initially have gone with a more moderate option of strikes on the Popular Mobilisation Forces. He reportedly changed his mind after the protests at the US embassy in Baghdad.

One Republican source told CNN that Mr Trump had been warned by his advisers that if he did not take some form of military action, Iran would continue to attempt such attacks.

“I am very confident he was not reluctant,” he said, adding that when Mr Trump has decided to act “you can’t out escalate him.”

Raab’s defence of Trump criticised by Labour

The foreign secretary took an abrupt turn in his position on the Soleimani killing this morning, as he insisted Donald Trump had “a right to self-defence”.

Given the shadow chancellor had previously urged Boris Johnson, who has been silent during his Carribean holiday, to go beyond calls for restraint and condemn the attacks outright, he was quick to criticise Mr Raab for his comments to Sophy Ridge.

Emergency parliament meeting in Iraq over future of US troops looks uncertain

The session called to debate the withdrawal of US troops was due to begin at 1pm local time (10am GMT), but is still yet to commence.

According to CNN, only about 20 of a possible 329 politicians have arrived, casting doubt on whether or not the meeting will take place.

Since the US airstrike that killed Soleimani and the Popular Mobilisation Forces commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, rival Shiite leaders have come together in an unusual show of unity to call for the expulsion of US troops from the country.

“There is no need for the presence of American forces after defeating Daesh (Islamic State),” said Ammar al-Shibli, a member of the parliamentary legal committee told Reuters. “We have our own armed forces which are capable of protecting the country.”

Hadi al-Amiri, the top candidate to succeed Muhandis, repeated his call for US troops to leave Iraq during Saturday’s funeral procession.

While several parties have now floated plans to restrict the US presence in Iraq, to various degrees, prime minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi’s approval also hangs in the balance for plans announced on Saturday to restrict the movement of coalition forces in Iraq.

It is unclear how far-ranging the proposed restrictions would be. Some 3,000 additional US troops have been deployed to the region, which currently houses 5,200 American soldiers.

5 hours ago

Iranian MP claims Islamic Republic has power to ‘attack the White House’

“We can attack the White House itself, we can respond to them on the American soil. We have the power, and God willing we will respond in an appropriate time,” said Abolfazl Abutorabi, a hardline MP, according to Iranian news agency ILNA .

The hardline lawmaker urged Iran “should crush America’s teeth” in response to a question on whether and how the Islamic Republic would react to the US assassination of Qassem Soleimani, in a furious parliamentary session held on Sunday.

“This is a declaration of war, which means if you hesitate you lose,” Mr Abutorabi added. “When someone declares war do you want to respond to the bullets with flowers? They will shoot you in the head.”

The Independent’s international correspondent, Borzou Daragahi, said the MP was an obscure lawmaker known for making incendiary remarks and suggested the claims should be treated with a large dose of scepticism.

He said Iran was not believed to have any missiles capable of reaching Washington DC, and an individual suicide attack would likely be the only realistic means of Tehran targeting the capital.

Any significant military action by Iran would have to be vetted and approved by its Supreme National Security Council, a body that includes Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, President Hassan Rouhani, and the leaders of the various branches of government and armed forces.

Mr Abutorabi also echoed previous suggestions that Iran could target ships in the Strait of Hormuz, where the Royal Navy was sent yesterday to escort ships.

“There are tens of thousands of possibilities for us to respond. Responding to the Americans in open waters does not pose any problem for us in terms of international regulations. We can take our revenge inside Iraq or in open waters.”

Andy.Gregory

5 January 2020 12:09

5 hours ago

Baghdad rocked by blasts late on Saturday night, near US embassy and forces

With funeral processions were still taking place last night in Baghdad, as some Iraqis mourned the death of Soleimani and commander of the Iranian-backed Popular Mobilisation Forces, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, there were several explosions at significant locations across the city.

The US-led coalition confirmed a rocket attack had taken place inside Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone, where the US embassy and government buildings are housed.

Another hit the nearby Jadriya neighbourhood, some 500 metres from the president’s usual residence of As-Salam palace. Police sources told Reuters five people were injured.

Several more mortars were fired at the Balad air base north of the city. The US-led coalition said no troops were hurt.

Meno2 · January 5, 2020, 8:07pm

A British prime minister flies back from a Caribbean holiday where he has been, courtesy of millionaire friends, sunning himself on yachts while the Middle East is in flames and Britain in the grip of a security crisis. Britain’s key ally is accused of war crimes on foreign soil in a fight with Iran and its regional proxies. European opinion has quickly solidified around the idea that both sides show restraint. The British response is to defy this advice and endorse a belligerent US administration’s approach. Deja vu? It certainly should sound familiar.

The year was 2006 and the British prime minister was Tony Blair. His stubborn refusal to call for a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon dealt, by his own account, a “fatal blow” to his premiership.

Boris Johnson could console himself that history does not quite repeat itself. He ought not to. Today’s crisis in the Middle East is much more dangerous and volatile than the one faced by his predecessor. Unlike Mr Blair, the current Downing Street incumbent is unproven in war. Mr Johnson is also dealing with a far more unstable, narcissistic and bullying president in the shape of Donald Trump than Mr Blair did. The fact Mr Trump did not think it necessary to inform Britain of his rash decision to assassinate Qassem Suleimani – Iran’s second most important leader after Ayatollah Khamenei – ought to tell Mr Johnson how little the White House thinks of him. Because the prime minister refused to return home early, his foreign secretary ate his own words in public. Dominic Raab was given a dressing down by his US counterpart after first siding with Europe over the almost certainly illegal killing of the thuggish Suleimani. It was disappointing to see Mr Raab replace his temperate response with self-serving US propaganda.

There appears barely any credible evidence of an imminent threat to the US from Suleimani or his Iranian-backed militias. Mr Trump has succeeded in replacing the media focus on his impeachment with the fallout from his lethal strike. This will not be inconsiderable: the Iraqi parliamentary vote for a motion calling for the ejection of US troops from the country is a taste of things to come. Mr Trump lacks the imagination to see the issues involved in the Middle East. The killing of the Iranian general is just another example of the failure of his “maximum pressure campaign” on Iran. His idea that crippling economic sanctions would force Tehran to capitulate only saw its leadership make bold military moves against both Arab rivals and western interests while restarting key parts of its nuclear programme.

Mr Trump projects the image of a strongman. Yet his actions have weakened the US strategic position in the Middle East. The national interest is not a guide to Mr Trump’s action. What matters is personal political advantage in a US election year. To stoke his evangelical base he presents his rivalry with Iran as a clash of civilisations. It is appalling that he thinks a legitimate military response is to commit war crimes by levelling Iran’s historic monuments. Mr Trump fears a public who already hold his policies responsible for tensions with Tehran. Whatever the Iranian retaliation it will be a messy outcome with no easy way for Mr Trump to pin the blame for war on anyone but himself.

Mr Johnson faces the first test of Britain’s post-Brexit foreign policy posture. Unlike George W Bush, Mr Trump won’t offer the British prime minister a way to sit out any upcoming war. He does not give help for free. He expects a quid pro quo. Jumping into the trenches with the US over a war Britain does not want may be the price Mr Johnson has to pay for a post-Brexit US-UK trade deal. There is a certain truth about the danger of any British prime minister swinging away from conventional wisdom and from British public opinion. Mr Blair was derided because it was said he let Britain become America’s poodle. This time the country risks ending up as its lapdog.

Trump’s America stands utterly alone

Updated 2:14 PM EST, Sun January 05, 2020

l

Editor’s Note: (David A. Andelman, executive director of The RedLines Project, is a contributor to CNN where his columns won the Deadline Club Award for Best Opinion Writing. Author of “A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today,” he was formerly a foreign correspondent for The New York Times and CBS News in Europe and Asia. Follow him on Twitter @DavidAndelman. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion on CNN.)

(CNN)This time, the United States stands utterly alone.

Since his inaugural address three years ago, President Donald Trump has repeatedly touted his nationalist views and acted on a warped belief that the essence of American foreign policy is self-reliance. Now, for the first time in at least a century, America may be going to war all by itself.

David Andelman

Trump launched his attack on Iran’s Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani without the backing of American allies. Trump even kept British Prime Minister Boris Johnson out of the loop, according to the BBC. A United Nations expert on extrajudicial executions said the killing “most likely” violated international law, while UK foreign secretary Dominic Raab urged “all parties to de-escalate.”

Trump has repeatedly alienated most of America’s traditional allies and led them to question his style of leadership. He has railed against fellow NATO members, and attacked leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron.

Soleimani killing: What happens next?

And despite protests from US allies, Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal while the remaining members – Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany – pledged to maintain the agreement designed to prevent Iran from making a mad dash toward a nuclear weapon. And the Europeans have bent over backwards to find ways of neutralizing or circumventing the sanctions Trump subsequently loaded onto Iran.

In withdrawing from the nuclear pact, the Trump administration launched a maximum pressure campaign, and Iran reciprocated with a number of provocations including shooting down a US military drone in June 2019. Trump nearly responded with a military strike, before calling it off and writing that it was “not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone.”

In 2013, when President Barack Obama contemplated a massive attack on Syria for use of chemical weapons during that nation’s civil war, he backed off when the British, following an eight-hour debate in Parliament, refused to join in. The UK’s support might have helped sway Congress, where Obama faced opposition from both parties.

Iran conflict confirms Trump is who Dems think he is

The foundations for Britain’s distrust were laid in 2003, when the UK supported the invasion of Iraq under the pretense that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, and members of Parliament were wary of making the same mistake a decade later. As Prime Minister David Cameron admitted during the debate, “One thing is indisputable: the well of public opinion was well and truly poisoned by the (2003) Iraq episode and we need to understand the public skepticism.”

George W. Bush convinced the world that Saddam was building a nuclear arsenal. Secretary of State Colin Powell even went before the UN Security Council with aerial photos purporting to show such advances. “My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources,” Powell said on February 5, 2003. “These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.” Of course, it turned out to be all utterly bogus. And Powell later acknowledged it was a blot on his record. By then, however, tens of thousands of troops fighting for America and its allies, had lost their lives, as well as at least 180,000 Iraqi civilians.

This time, Trump said, “Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel, but we caught him in the act and terminated him.” Since then, he has produced no such evidence.

‘World War III’ was trending

By killing Soleimani, Trump has provoked a power that has powerful friends, and little to lose. Last month, Iran joined Russia and China on massive joint naval maneuvers in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Oman. China has also proved to be a receptive customer for Iran’s oil sales, despite Trump’s efforts to crush the Islamic Republic’s economy. Iran has also aligned with Russia in backing Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

History would also suggest that Iran is fully prepared to unleash asymmetric warfare unlike any before seen. Its eight-year war with Iraq from 1980 to 1988 has shown it to be capable of assembling vast reserves of would-be martyrs in the form of human wave attacks unlike anything terrorist groups have been able to mount.

By his action, Trump crossed several critical red lines in the region, without notice and without backup. For the past two years, I have been studying the nature, structure and history of red lines for my forthcoming book, A Line in the Sand: Red Lines in Peace and War," to be published by Pegasus. I’ve found that the Middle East, particularly Iran, Iraq and Syria today have a density of red lines – ranging from geographical borders to political, diplomatic or military realities – replicated in no other region of the world, nor at any other moment in history. Each line must in some fashion be carefully communicated or structured so that all parties understand the reality and the stakes for violating them.

Certainly, Soleimani crossed a critical red line himself by going into Iraq where he was killed in a drone strike at a Baghdad airport. But Trump, by his response, crossed an even more dangerous one by escalating an already tense situation across a red line that was not its own – without support from crucial allies.

Perhaps most troubling is the fact that Trump does not seem to be at all concerned about his lack of friends and allies, nor for that matter has he expressed any real plan of response beyond a tweeted threat of retaliation against 52 Iranian targets if Iran strikes back. Above all, he does not seem to have an exit strategy or end game in mind. Establishing or violating a red line is not an action to be undertaken cavalierly or without careful consideration as to the response or the outcome.

Meno2 · January 6, 2020, 2:54am

Trump tells Congress to follow him on Twitter for updates on war with Iran

The president recently used Twitter to threaten Iran with war crimes

By T.C. Sottek

on January 5, 2020 4:15 pm

After ordering the assassination of a top Iranian commander without giving notice to congressional leaders, President Trump has told Congress to follow him on Twitter for updates on his acts of war against Iran.

Today’s dramatic tweet from the president follows another issued on January 4th, in which Trump threatened the destruction of 52 Iranian targets, including cultural sites. (The targeting of cultural sites is considered a war crime.)

Trump has long used Twitter to harass, insult, and demean his enemies, and as president, he has used the platform to issue surprise orders, announcements, and even threats against other nations like North Korea. In 2018, Trump fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by tweet. More generally, federal agencies have struggled to reckon with the president’s use of Twitter during his administration, often wondering whether his mercurial pronouncements should be handled as official government policy.

Nonetheless, Trump’s recent tweets are an improbable escalation of his use of the platform to incite geopolitical disorder and marginalize Congress. They may also signal illegal behavior; according to Yale Law School processor Oona Hathaway, Trump “cannot notify Congress under the War Powers Resolution by tweet.” (Trump also later posted the same message on Facebook.)

Despite now threatening war on the service, Twitter is unlikely to take action against the president’s account. In January 2018, Twitter declared that “blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial tweets would hide important information.”

The New York Times

Iran Challenges Trump, Announcing End of Nuclear Restrictions

President Trump thought the nuclear deal was flawed because restrictions on Iran would end after 15 years. Now, responding to a U.S. strike, Iran has declared the limits over after less than five.

To much of the world, President Trump’s decision to back out of the Iran nuclear deal precipitated the hostilities today.Credit…Eric Thayer for The New York Times

When President Trump withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018, he justified his unilateral action by saying the accord was flawed, in part because the major restrictions on Iran ended after 15 years, when Tehran would be free to produce as much nuclear fuel as it wanted.

But now, instead of buckling to American pressure, Iran declared on Sunday that those restrictions are over — a decade ahead of schedule. Mr. Trump’s gambit has effectively backfired.

Iran’s announcement essentially sounded the death knell of the 2015 nuclear agreement. And it largely re-creates conditions that led Israel and the United States to consider destroying Iran’s facilities a decade ago, again bringing them closer to the potential of open conflict with Tehran that was avoided by the accord.

Iran did stop short of abandoning the entire deal on Sunday, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and its foreign minister held open the possibility that his nation would return to its provisions in the future — if Mr. Trump reversed course and lifted the sanctions he has imposed since withdrawing from the accord.

That, at least, appeared to hold open the possibility of a diplomatic off-ramp to the major escalation in hostilities since the United States killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the second most powerful official in Iran and head of the Quds Force.

But some leading experts declared that the effort to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions through diplomacy was over. “It’s finished,” David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation, said in an interview. “If there’s no limitation on production, then there is no deal.”

To some of the Iran deal’s most vociferous critics, the announcement was a welcome development. Among them was John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser who was ousted by Mr. Trump last summer because, the president said, he was concerned Mr. Bolton was forcing him into conflict with Iran.

“Another good day,” Mr. Bolton wrote on Twitter. “Iran rips the mask off the idea it ever fully complied with the nuclear deal, or that it made a strategic decision to forswear nuclear weapons. Now, it’s on to the real job: effectively preventing the ayatollahs from getting such a capability.”

But to much of the world — especially the Europeans, Russians and Chinese, who were partners in the nuclear deal — Mr. Trump’s decision to back out of the accord led to the crisis.

The president’s unilateral action started a sequence of events — the re-imposition of American sanctions, Iran’s gradual return to nuclear activity over the past year, actions that led to the targeting of General Suleimani — that could be speeding the two countries toward conflict.

Iran’s announcement means that it will no longer observe any limits on the number of centrifuges it can install to enrich uranium or the level to which it enriches it.

Iran did not say if it would resume production at 20 percent, a major leap toward bomb-grade uranium, or beyond. But by allowing inspectors to remain in the country, as the foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said Tehran would, Iran will have witnesses to its own “maximum pressure” campaign against the West.

The primary American objective in the 2015 agreement was to keep Iran at least a year away from getting enough fuel to fashion a warhead.

Even before Sunday’s announcement, a series of steps by Tehran discarding elements of the agreement had reduced that warning time to a matter of months. The risk now is that uncertainties about how close the Iranians are to their first weapon will grow, and perhaps become fodder for calls in the United States and Israel to take military action.

In essence, Iran is saying it now can produce whatever kind of nuclear fuel it wants, including bomb-grade material.

Now, the United States and Israel must confront the big question: Will they take military or cyberwarfare action to try to cripple those production facilities?

More than a decade ago the United States and Israel cooperated on a mission code-named Olympic Games, the most sophisticated cyberattack in history, to get into the computer code driving the centrifuges at the Natanz nuclear enrichment site and make them blow up.

The Iranians recovered, and rebuilt the facility, tripling the number of centrifuges that existed before the cyberattack and opening a new centrifuge center deep in a mountain called Fordow, which is far harder to bomb. Israel repeatedly considered bombing the facilities, but was stopped by the United States and internal warnings about starting a war.

Now, after the killing of General Suleimani, those restraints could evaporate.

The nuclear deal also laid out unusually stringent scrutiny for all of Iran’s main nuclear facilities — “including daily access” if international atomic inspectors requested it.

Sunday’s announcement left unclear whether Tehran intends to obey that heightened scrutiny or will lower its adherence to the standard level. In a Twitter post, Mr. Zarif, the foreign minister, said “Iran’s full cooperation” with the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency “will continue.”

Mr. Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security said that reduced visibility into the Iranian nuclear program could end up increasing fears of worst-case scenarios — and, perhaps, miscalculations — related to military strikes and war.

“They were added to gain comfort,” Mr. Albright said of the strengthened inspections. “Having daily access reduced suspicions and the chance of conspiracy theories taking root.”

For example, Mr. Albright said, new ambiguity could darken views in the West on how long it would take Iran to make enough fuel for a single atomic bomb — what nuclear experts call “breakout.” Such estimates are based on the number and efficiency of the whirling machines that concentrate a rare isotope of uranium to levels high enough to make weapon fuel.

The Iran deal was designed to keep Tehran a year or more away from getting enough highly enriched uranium to fashion a single warhead — what international inspectors call “a significant quantity.”

Mr. Albright said his group’s worst-case estimate for an Iranian breakout is four to five months. But some experts, he added, have estimated as little as two months.

He noted that the international inspectors still would have regular access to Iran’s nuclear facilities as part of the safeguard agreements of nuclear nations.

But if “the high level of transparency that the nuclear deal provided” should come to an end, Mr. Albright added, “it could undermine confidence” in the West’s assessments of Iran’s nuclear acts and intentions.

The Deepening Conflict With Iran

Read more on the turmoil following a U.S. strike that killed an Iranian general.

Iran Ends Nuclear Limits as Killing of Iranian General Upends Mideast

Jan. 5, 2020

Pompeo Warns Iran’s Leaders U.S. Could Attack Them if They Retaliate

Jan. 5, 2020

U.S.-Led Coalition Halts ISIS Fight as It Steels for Iranian Attacks

Meno2 · January 6, 2020, 5:57am

Nancy Pelosi says House will vote to limit Trump’s war powers on Iran as tensions grow
NICHOLAS WU | USA TODAY | 1 hour ago

Members of the 290-seat Iranian parliament raise a fist and chant “death to America” to protest the death of Qasem Soleimani.

USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – On Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House of Representatives will vote this week on legislation to limit President Donald Trump’s military actions on Iran in the wake of increased tensions between the two countries after Trump ordered an airstrike killing top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani last Thursday

In a letter to Democratic members of the House, Pelosi said the “provocative and disproportionate” airstrike on Soleimani "endangered our servicemembers, diplomats and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran. "

Pelosi thanked lawmakers for their “patriotic leadership” during the tense period.

The resolution, which Pelosi said will be introduced and voted on this week, will mandate that military hostilities with Iran cease within 30 days unless further congressional authorization like a declaration of war is taken.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., has introduced a similar resolution in the Senate.

Pelosi’s promise to deliberate and vote on the war powers legislation comes as Congress returns from its holiday recess on Monday and could alter the politics around Trump’s impeachment.

The House voted to impeach Trump on Dec. 18 but has declined to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate over concerns about a fair trial. Senate Democrats and Republicans have deadlocked in negotiations over the format of a trial.

According to Pelosi, freshman Michigan Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin will lead the resolution. Slotkin, who is from a swing district outside Detroit, is a former Department of Defense and CIA analyst.

More: Donald Trump again threatens to target Iranian cultural sites amid mounting tensions over Qasem Soleimani killing

More: Donald Trump threatens Iraq with sanctions, says US won’t leave unless ‘they pay us back’ for air base

Slotkin has been critical of the Trump administration’s actions in the Middle East, and in a series of tweets on Friday, she saidthat the Democratic and Republican administrations she served under made the calculation that targeting Soleimani posed too great a risk to American diplomats and service members.

The two administrations I worked for both determined that the ultimate ends didn’t justify the means. The Trump Administration has made a different calculation.

The Iranian government has vowed to retaliate and avenge Soleimani’s death, and could do so in any number of ways:

— Rep. Elissa Slotkin (@RepSlotkin) January 3, 2020

Soleimani’s killing has sparked fears of a broader conflict in the Middle East as tensions between the United States and Iran have escalated.

On Sunday, the Iraqi Parliament voted to expel American soldiers from the country, drawing the threat of sanctions from Trump. Trump also reiterated his threat to target Iranian cultural sites if Iran takes military action against U.S. forces.

Iran also abandoned its remaining commitments to a nuclear deal between it and world powers that the United States left in May 2018.

… … …

The Guardian - Back to home

Boris Johnson

Iran

UK would not back US bombing of Iran cultural sites – No 10
Downing Street says such military action would break international treaties in implicit rebuke to Trump

UK politics latest – live updates
Rowena Mason Deputy political editor
Mon 6 Jan 2020 08.08 EST
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via Email
Downing Street has said targeting cultural sites in Iran would breach international warfare conventions in an implicit rebuke to Donald Trump for threatening to bomb protected heritage sites.

Boris Johnson’s official spokesman refused to criticise Trump directly but made clear the UK government would not support such a course of action, after the US president said he could target 52 Iranian sites if Iran retaliated over the assassination of Qassem Suleimani – “some at a very high level and important to Iran and the Iranian culture”.

Trump’s comments amount to threatening a war crime because such action would violate international treaties, but he repeated the threat on Sunday, saying: “They’re allowed to kill our people, they’re allowed to torture and maim our people, they’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people, and we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way.”

To believe there’ll be world war three is to swallow US propaganda | Nesrine Malik
Responding to Trump’s latest comments, Johnson’s spokesman said there were “international conventions in place that prevent the destruction of cultural heritage”, implying the UK does not believe such threats would be carried out.

“You can read the international conventions for yourself. It is the 1954 Hague convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict,” he added.

However, Downing Street was careful not to criticise Trump directly, insisting that Britain’s security partnership with the US remained “very close” despite Johnson not having been informed of Washington’s plan to assassinate Suleimani in advance.

The prime minister’s official spokesman said: “We have a very close security partnership with the United States, we are in regular dialogue at every level.”

Asked if Johnson was convinced the US drone strike was legal, the spokesman said: “States have a right to take action such as this in self-defence and the US have been clear that Suleimani was plotting imminent attacks on American diplomats and military personnel.”

The spokesman also defended Johnson’s failure to make any sort of statement on the assassination for 68 hours while he was holidaying with his partner on the Caribbean island of Mustique.

“The PM was in contact with senior officials and senior ministers throughout the course of Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The government’s position was set out by the foreign secretary,” he said.

The prime minister spoke to Trump, as well as Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and Emmanuel Macron, the French president, on Sunday. The UK, Germany and France issued a joint statement urging de-escalation and restraint by all parties late on Sunday night.

Johnson also spoke to the Iraqi prime minister on Monday morning, and urged him to allow foreign troops to remain in the country to fight against the threat posed by Islamic State.

“The coalition is in Iraq to protect Iraqis and others from the threat from Daesh [Isis] at the request of the Iraqi government,” the spokesman said. “We urge the Iraqi government to ensure the coalition is able to continue our vital work countering this shared threat.

“The foreign secretary spoke to the Iraqi president and prime minister this weekend. The prime minister is speaking with his Iraqi counterpart today and our ambassador in Baghdad is in touch with political leaders in Iraq to emphasise these points and urge them to ensure we can keep fighting this threat together.”

Johnson will meet senior ministers to discuss the Iran situation later on Monday and hold a meeting of the national security council on Tuesday