Trump enters the stage

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

Meno2 · January 6, 2020, 5:01pm

“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.”

{Is there such a risk? There always is. The nuclear clock has not of late been mentioned, neither the accidentally human risk of technical accidents. But these aside, how about the discrepancy between human political and psychological error based on multiform differences between levels of intelligence? The basic cunning of animals to overcome fight or flight decisions clashes with civilization’s vaneer, whose thickness varies not only response awareness and reaction in situ, but with the differences entailed regionally.
The sacred sights of Islam is possibly the only lasting symbol which people in the middle east can be able to apprehend, and as such it is possibly a fuse which is very sensitive to them, and it most certainly more dangerous then an assassination.
Let us face the fact that it is no longer the Democratic Ideal that draws men to the light of faith and reason, because the power plays by an imperium such as the U.S. represents, draw the powerless , like blind moths to a lamp.They are also aware, the disillusioned, to be squeezed between the equally blind Capital acquisition, and the opposing illusions of social paradise…
People the world over have followed children in seeing the undressing of the naked emperor, their political faith gone down the toilet, their recurrent faith in the greatness of their heritage is the last draw.

Playing with fire, in the name of remaking America into the thin layer of supremacy that was sustained for a mere few decades, is like sustaining communism as a lasting principle to live by.

The dialectic showed one thing, that it’s demise, as a dynamic formulation, of replacing god, became a conceivable major fault, whereby the non dialectical adjunct, will be pulled down as well.

Democracy, in all fairness was the countwrbalancing of values by which Capital could maintain it’s credibility.
This is the huge balancing act whose fulcrum is in disarray, to the extent that it’s width has become internationally variable to a dangerous level.
This is where the ancient end of world mythic scenario impinge on political expediency.

As that realization sinks in, Trump ingeniously would rather de-mythologies the past, American style, then allow people to hold on to these magnaminious and delusive symbols to their disadvantage.

There is a kind of strange rationale to this, and the BIG question now, is, can a progressive light be adopted to overcome the madness of aesthetic support in ancient, albeit lost powers of social and uniform powers?

Because , man’s will has always been dependent on powers, powers which suspend temporal and terirorriak reality, and is capable to deconstruct the reasonable adherence to law, of any current order impressed upon compatible and peaceful sustenance of life.

The ominous facts point to a fulcrum, whose power is becoming vastly shortened to it’s source, and the sad fact us, that power apparently has leaked into an abyss so unwary of it’s self, that it can look out of it’s self and begin to see itself as the source of it’s own eclipse.

The darkness is slowly able to identify it’s self , and here is the problem in essence:

When that essential being dies to it’s self, for repression is becoming near absolute followed by it’s nemesis -denial, the real need to collude with the unreal, life with death, knowing, that only life exists. The old myths are hard to come by in absence of artifacts, and this awareness is only palatable on either ends of an extremely palatable spectrum:

1 The far strung of formal aesthetic, and 2 That of its opposite-the extremes form of self indulgence. The grey area has blown out the light of reason a king long time ago, there are few if any reasonable men left there to warrant consideration.}*

{ }*represents my comments

MagsJ · January 6, 2020, 5:37pm

I will have to watch tonight’s news… I don’t envy the current newly-elected U.K. government, in this situation they find themselves in, and have to make decisions on.

Meno2 · January 6, 2020, 8:08pm

Would You inform us as to Your reactions of it?

Thanks.

The interesting correlative to this is the effect of techno-politics and how all combatants can be infused by the so called collusive effects which pit the representatives against the executors of constitutive interpretation.

When it really comes down to the wire, the executive wins palms up, because representation has become kind of a endlesw search for meaning.

That meaning is presented , and represented on in a high wire class act that has become more of.an aesthetic performance than demonstrative of real information. Everyone gets caught in the novel ways then in actually reading them in what may turn out to be just another plotless novel.

The theatrics anticipated in the 2020 election may dwarf those that went down in the 2016 one.

Meno2 · January 6, 2020, 8:21pm

Decisions, which for the most.part predicate on part of having to accede to U.S. foreign policy. The result of an integral special U.S.- U.K. relationship

But please, at it’s earliest , remit whatever You got out of it tonight.

Meno2 · January 7, 2020, 12:24am

POLITICO

CONGRESS

Bolton curveball threatens to upend impeachment trial

Bolton’s offer is a win for Senate Democrats, who have sought additional testimony and documents against the president.

By ANDREW DESIDERIO and KYLE CHENEY

01/06/2020 12:03 PM ES

Former national security adviser John Bolton said Monday that he would testify if he is subpoenaed as part of the Senate’s impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

In a statement posted online, Bolton, who was asked to testify as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry but refused to appear for a deposition, said he wants to meet his “obligations” both as a citizen and as a former top presidential adviser.

“Since my testimony is once again at issue, I have had to resolve the serious competing issues as best I could, based on careful consideration and study,” Bolton wrote. “I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.”

Bolton’s surprise offer comes as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) remain at an impasse over the parameters for the chamber’s trial. Schumer has been pushing McConnell to allow additional witness testimony and document production as part of the trial, but McConnell has maintained that those issues should be considered after the trial begins.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

“It is now up to four Senate Republicans to support bringing in Mr. Bolton,” Schumer said in a statement, renewing his demand for three other witnesses to appear for testimony: acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, top Mulvaney aide Robert Blair and senior budget official Michael Duffey. All three refused to appear for testimony before House impeachment investigators.

“If any Senate Republican opposes issuing subpoenas to the four witnesses and documents we have requested they would make absolutely clear they are participating in a cover up,” Schumer added, noting that Bolton’s lawyer has already said his client has information to share with investigators that has not been previously disclosed.

The statement from Bolton — who has remained relatively quiet since Trump fired him last year — hands Senate Democrats a new weapon as they seek to exert pressure on Republicans to call witnesses and seek documentary evidence to add to the House’s articles of impeachment. A Senate subpoena requires at least 51 votes, and four Republicans would need to vote with Democrats.

One of those potential GOP votes, Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, said he would “of course” want to hear from Bolton. But he stopped short of declaring he would vote in favor of subpoenaing Bolton, adding: “What’s important is that we hear from him.”

Before his announcement, Bolton, who has been described as a central witness to the allegations for which the House impeached Trump, gave a heads up to McConnell informing the majority leader of his decision, according a source familiar with the matter.

GOP Sen. John Cornyn of Texas did not rule out voting to subpoena Bolton, but said the question of witnesses should be left for later in the trial, echoing McConnell’s position. He suggested if that occurred, it could actually help Trump’s case.

“What I think Bolton could say, this is a disagreement over the way foreign policy is being conducted. There’s no crime being judged,” Cornyn told reporters. “I have no objection to his testifying either through his deposition or some pre-recorded testimony. To me it amounts to an admission that what they’ve presented so far is pretty thin gruel.”

CONGRESS

Bolton’s move also unleashes new and complicated constitutional questions, including whether the House will attempt to subpoena Bolton now that he has acknowledged his willingness to comply with a congressional subpoena. Bolton’s pronouncement also raises the question of whether Trump could intervene to block his testimony.

Amid the clashes between McConnell and Schumer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has refused to formally transmit the impeachment articles to the Senate. The House impeached Trump on Dec. 18, but Pelosi has said she wants to wait until the parameters of the Senate trial become clearer. Senators expect Pelosi to send the articles later this week.

“The president & Sen. McConnell have run out of excuses,” Pelosi wrote on Twitter Monday. “They must allow key witnesses to testify, and produce the documents Trump has blocked, so Americans can see the facts for themselves. The Senate cannot be complicit in the president’s cover-up.”

Bolton was not subpoenaed as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry, and he did not say in his statement whether he would comply with a subpoena from the lower chamber. A spokeswoman for Bolton declined to comment on whether he would honor a House subpoena.

Bolton indicated that he had initially planned to decide whether to testify based on the outcome of a court case brought by his former deputy, Charles Kupperman. Kupperman — who had been subpoenaed to testify in the House’s impeachment inquiry but was ordered by Trump not to appear — sought a federal court ruling to resolve the conflicting demands.

But the House, seeking to disentangle its impeachment push from ongoing litigation, withdrew its subpoena and promised not to punish Kupperman for refusing to testify. The White House, too, urged the court to drop the case, claiming Kupperman was immune from testifying. Last week, Judge Richard Leon agreed, ending the short-lived court battle. Bolton acknowledged that decision, saying Leon issued a “carefully reasoned opinion.”

“It now falls to the Senate to fulfill its constitutional obligation to try impeachments, and it does not appear possible that a final judicial resolution of the still-unanswered constitutional questions can be obtained before the Senate acts,” Bolton said Monday.

Bolton’s testimony would be a major break for impeachment investigators.

Senior State Department and White House officials described Bolton as a central witness to Trump’s effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. According to former National Security Council aide Fiona Hill, Bolton bristled at Trump’s reliance on his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to conduct back-channel talks with Ukrainians in service of Trump’s efforts. Hill recalled that Bolton referred to the matter as a “drug deal,” adding that Bolton called Giuliani a “hand grenade” who threatened to blow up U.S. foreign policy goals.

A lawyer for Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine adviser on the National Security Council, said Vindman “would definitely support” Bolton’s testimony.

“It will corroborate [Vindman’s] testimony as well as Dr. Fiona Hill’s testimony," said the lawyer, Michael Volkov. Vindman and Hill, the NSC’s former top Russia adviser, told lawmakers that Bolton was opposed to Trump’s withholding of military aid to Ukraine.

Vindman does not harbor any resentment toward Bolton for refusing to testify in the House inquiry, Volkov said. “He admires Bolton and followed his directions at all times.”

Democrats said the aid was frozen to pressure Ukraine’s new president to launch Trump’s desired investigations. The White House has blocked several central witnesses to the decision on military aid from testifying before impeachment investigators.

NEWS ON TRUMP IMPEACHMENT

Iran cultural sights------

As soon as the news of the killing of Qasem Soleimani broke, Iranians were divided. Some were offended and some celebrated it on social media.

The division got ugly on Twitter. Some were accused of being victims of “Stockholm syndrome” because they were angry about the killing, and others were labelled traitors.

But US President Donald Trump’s tweet threatening the targeting of Iran’s cultural sites united Iranians against him.

Some of the sites are religious and some are not, but secular and religious Iranians are proud of their heritage and came together to denounce the president’s threats. Nothing could better unite divided Iranians at home and in the diaspora than a hit on their beloved past.

Iran’s foreign minister seized the opportunity and in several tweets compared President Trump to the Islamic State group, which destroyed many cultural sites in Syria.

Presentational grey line
Iran’s top cultural sites
Iran is home to two dozen Unesco World Heritage sites. These are landmarks the UN body believes need preserving for their cultural, historic or scientific significance. They include:

Persepolis, the capital of the ancient Persian Achaemenid Empire, whose earliest remains date back to the 6th Century BC
Image copyrightALAMYAchaemenid inscription at Behistun, Iran
Naqsh-e Jahan Square in the city of Isfahan, which was built in the early 17th Century and is one of the largest city squares in the world
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGESTiled Architecture of Imam Mosque, Isfahan
Golestan Palace in Tehran, the residence and seat of power for the Qajar dynasty which ruled Iran from 1785 to 1925

There are also a number of sites which - while not listed by Unesco - still retain huge cultural importance.

XxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx

Brit Reactions

BBC News

menu

Trump under fire for threat to Iranian cultural sites
115
06 January 2020

Middle East

Share this with Email Share this with Facebook Share this with Twitter Share this with Whatsapp

Image captionNaqsh-e Jahan Square, in the city of Isfahan, is one of two dozen Unesco World Heritage sites in Iran

US President Donald Trump has faced growing criticism over his threats to attack Iran’s cultural sites.

Mr Trump made the threats amid fallout from the US assassination of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani.

The president said cultural sites were among 52 identified Iranian targets that could be attacked if Iranians “torture, maim and blow up our people”.

But the UN’s cultural organisation and UK foreign secretary were among those to note that such sites were protected.

The US and Iran have signed conventions to protect cultural heritage, including during conflict. Military attacks targeting cultural sites are considered war crimes under international law.

Qasem Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike in Baghdad on Friday on the orders of Mr Trump. The killing has sharply increased regional tensions, with Iran threatening “severe revenge”.

What were the president’s threats?

The first came in a series of tweets on Saturday.

Mr Trump said the US had identified 52 Iranian sites, some “at a very high level and important to Iran and the Iranian culture”, and warned they would be “hit very fast and hard” if Tehran carried out revenge attacks on US interests or personnel.

US ready to strike 52 Iranian sites, Trump warns

Who was Iran’s Qasem Soleimani?

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appeared to try to soften the threat by saying the US would act within international law.

But the president later repeated his threat, 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 site? It doesn’t work that way.”

On Monday, White House adviser Kellyanne Conway defended the president, saying he had not said he was targeting cultural sites, only “asking the question”.

She also said: “Iran has many strategic military sites that you may cite are also cultural sites”, before later clarifying her remark to say she was not suggesting Iran had camouflaged military targets as cultural sites.

Defence Secretary Mark Esper was later asked if the US would target cultural sites, and said: “We will follow the laws of armed conflict.”

When asked if that meant no, “because targeting a cultural site is a war crime?”, he responded: “That’s the laws of armed conflict.”

What criticism did his comments draw?

The director general of the UN’s cultural organisation, Unesco, Audrey Azoulay, said both Iran and the US had signed a 1972 convention to protect the world’s natural and cultural heritage .

They have also both signed a 1954 convention protecting cultural property in the event of armed conflict . Mr Trump withdrew the US from Unesco in 2018, citing alleged anti-Israeli bias.

US Democratic senators Elizabeth Warren and Chris Murphy said Mr Trump was “threatening to commit war crimes”, echoing similar statements by Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

On Monday, UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said cultural sites were protected by international law, and Britain expected that to be respected.

The wider region has suffered many cultural attacks carried out by the Islamic State group, which targeted mosques, shrines, churches and famous sites such as Palmyra in Syria. The Taliban in Afghanistan destroyed the world’s tallest Buddha statues, in Bamiyan province.

Video captionOnce destroyed by the Taliban, the Buddha statues live again

Trump’s cultural sites threat unites Iranians

By Sam Farzaneh, BBC Persian

As soon as the news of the killing of Qasem Soleimani broke, Iranians were divided. Some were offended and some celebrated it on social media.

The division got ugly on Twitter. Some were accused of being victims of “Stockholm syndrome” because they were angry about the killing, and others were labelled traitors.

But US President Donald Trump’s tweet threatening the targeting of Iran’s cultural sites united Iranians against him.

Some of the sites are religious and some are not, but secular and religious Iranians are proud of their heritage and came together to denounce the president’s threats. Nothing could better unite divided Iranians at home and in the diaspora than a hit on their beloved past.

Iran’s foreign minister seized the opportunity and in several tweets compared President Trump to the Islamic State group, which destroyed many cultural sites in Syria.

Iran’s top cultural sites

Iran is home to two dozen Unesco World Heritage sites. These are landmarks the UN body believes need preserving for their cultural, historic or scientific significance. They include:

Persepolis, the capital of the ancient Persian Achaemenid Empire, whose earliest remains date back to the 6th Century BC

Naqsh-e Jahan Square in the city of Isfahan, which was built in the early 17th Century and is one of the largest city squares in the world

Golestan Palace in Tehran, the residence and seat of power for the Qajar dynasty which ruled Iran from 1785 to 1925

There are also a number of sites which - while not listed by Unesco - still retain huge cultural importance.

Senate cover-up? So’re smells like:

POLITICO

CONGRESS

GOP moderates side with McConnell over Bolton testimony
Democrats are unlikely to get four Republicans to vote to subpoena John Bolton

01/06/2020 05:56 PM EST

Despite John Bolton’s willingness to testify about the Ukraine scandal, the GOP-controlled Senate has no immediate plans to subpoena him in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial — a win for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the White House.

While Democrats have called for testimony from Trump’s former national security adviser, so far there’s no sign that they will secure support from four Republicans they would need to follow through on their demand.

In their bid for a “fair trial,” Democrats were hoping moderate Republicans like Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah will endorse their efforts to bring in Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to testify at the trial. They also want to subpoena documents related to the Ukraine scandal.

But on Monday, Collins and Murkowski both signaled they wanted to begin the trial first. “I believe that the Senate should follow the precedent that was established in the trial of President Clinton,” Collins said, echoing McConnell’s argument. “I think that we will decide at that stage who we need to hear from.”

Murkowski, when asked about a potential Bolton subpoena, said: “We’ve got to get to the first place first.”

Romney said he was open to hearing testimony from Bolton, but he stopped short of saying he would vote with Democrats to subpoena him. Romney acknowledged Bolton “has firsthand information” on the Ukraine scandal, and “assuming that articles of impeachment reach the Senate, I’d like to hear what he has to say.”

Even vulnerable Republicans, such as Cory Gardner of Colorado, who faces a competitive re-election race in 2020, expressed no interest in hearing from Bolton.

“Is Nancy going to send the articles over? She doesn’t seem to care?” said Gardner, referring to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "You guys want to have a trial by Twitter but until she has the articles sent over there is no trial.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s allies are losing patience with Pelosi and are accusing her of trying to dictate the terms of the Senate trial by withholding the articles of impeachment. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a staunch Trump ally, reiterated Monday he would move to change Senate rules to allow the chamber to move forward on its own authority, if Pelosi refuses to transmit the articles soon.

“From my view, I think we should urge the speaker to send over the articles [of impeachment]. If she doesn’t, we should change the rules,” Graham told reporters on Monday. “You can’t let her use the rules against us. She has a duty to transmit them.”

“I don’t want to turn the Senate over to Nancy Pelosi,” Graham added.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) also introduced his own resolution Monday that would allow the Senate to dismiss the articles of impeachment “for lack of prosecution.”

“My view is that the majority leader’s made a very generous offer to Democrats, which is: Let’s use the Clinton rules and start this trial. And we can decide witnesses and so forth later,” Hawley said. “Now, I don’t know why we would call witnesses on the Democrat side. They’ve had their chance.”

Hawley and other Republicans have argued that they should rely on the same information the House used to impeach the president. In their view, if the House could impeach Trump based on the information presented to the chamber, the Senate can make its decisions based on the same evidence.

The House voted in December to impeach Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, after he pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate his political rivals in exchange for military aid.

CONGRESS

Bolton curveball threatens to upend impeachment trial
BY ANDREW DESIDERIO AND KYLE CHENEY

McConnell and Schumer sparred again about the terms of the Senate impeachment trial on the floor Monday. McConnell is insisting the Senate use the same format as President Bill Clinton’s 1999 impeachment trial, when the Senate decided unanimously to initially hear arguments and then call witnesses.

“The Senate has a unanimous bipartisan precedent for when to handle mid-trial questions such as witnesses: In the middle of the trial,” McConnell said Monday. “The Senate said, 100 to nothing, that was good enough for President Clinton. So it ought to be good enough for President Trump. Fair is fair.”

But Schumer has rejected that argument, noting the Clinton impeachment trial had sworn testimony from witnesses.

“Leader McConnell’s view of the trial is an Alice-in-Wonderland view,” Schumer said. “When Leader McConnell proposes that we follow the 1999 precedent, he is essentially arguing that we should conduct the entire impeachment trial first, and then once it’s over, decide on whether we need witnesses and documents.”

The New York Times

Opinion

The Nightmare Stage of Trump’s Rule Is Here

Unstable and impeached, the president pushes the U.S. toward war with Iran.

By Michelle Goldberg

Opinion Columnist

Jan. 6, 2020

After three harrowing years, we’ve reached the point many of us feared from the moment Donald Trump was elected. His decision to kill Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s second most important official, made at Mar-a-Lago with little discernible deliberation, has brought the United States to the brink of a devastating new conflict in the Middle East.

We don’t yet know how Iran will retaliate, or whether all-out war will be averted. But already, NATO has suspended its mission training Iraqi forces to fight ISIS. Iraq’s Parliament has voted to expel American troops — a longtime Iranian objective. (On Monday, U.S. forces sent a letter saying they were withdrawing from Iraq in response, only to then claim that it was a draft released in error.) On Sunday, Iran said it will no longer be bound by the remaining restrictions on its nuclear program in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal that Trump abandoned in 2018. Trump has been threatening to commit war crimes by destroying Iran’s cultural sites and tried to use Twitter to notify Congress of his intention to respond to any Iranian reprisals with military escalation.

THE ARGUMENT

Listen to our podcast every Thursday morning, with Ross Douthat, Michelle Goldberg and David Leonhardt

The administration has said that the killing of Suleimani was justified by an imminent threat to American lives, but there is no reason to believe this. One skeptical American official told The New York Times that the new intelligence indicated nothing but “a normal Monday in the Middle East,” and Democrats briefed on it were unconvinced by the administration’s case. The Washington Post reported that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — who last year agreed with a Christian Broadcasting Network interviewer that God might have sent Trump to save Israel from the “Iranian menace” — has been pushing for a hit on Suleimani for months.

Rather than self-defense, the Suleimani killing seems like the dreadful result of several intersecting dynamics. There’s the influence of rapture-mad Iran hawks like Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence. Defense officials who might have stood up to Trump have all left the administration. According to Peter Bergen’s book “Trump and His Generals,” James Mattis, Trump’s former secretary of defense, instructed his subordinates not to provide the president with options for a military showdown with Iran. But with Mattis gone, military officials, The Times reported, presented Trump with the possibility of killing Suleimani as the “most extreme” option on a menu of choices, and were “flabbergasted” when he picked it.

Trump likely had mixed motives. He was reportedly upset over TV images of militia supporters storming the American Embassy in Iraq. According to The Post, he also was frustrated by “negative coverage” of his decision last year to order and then call off strikes on Iran.

Beyond that, Trump, now impeached and facing trial in the Senate, has laid out his rationale over years of tweets. The president is a master of projection, and his accusations against others are a decent guide to how he himself will behave. He told us, over and over again, that he believed Barack Obama would start a war with Iran to “save face” and because his “poll numbers are in a tailspin” and he needed to “get re-elected.” To Trump, a wag-the-dog war with Iran evidently seemed like a natural move for a president in trouble.

It’s hard to see how this ends without disaster. Defenders of Trump’s move have suggested that he might have re-established deterrence against Iran, frightening its leadership into restraint. But Vali Nasr, a Middle East scholar at Johns Hopkins University and former senior adviser to Obama’s State Department, tells me that Iran likely believes that it has to re-establish deterrence against the United States.

“If they don’t do anything, or if they don’t do enough, then Trump will get comfortable with this kind of behavior, and that worries them,” said Nasr. To Iranians, after all, America is the aggressor, scrapping a nuclear agreement that they were abiding by and imposing a punishing “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign. Just like militarists in the United States, they’re likely to assume that weakness invites attacks. “I don’t think they want to provoke war, but they do want to send a signal that they’re prepared for it,” said Nasr.

Even if Iran were to somehow decide not to strike back at the United States, it’s still ramping up its nuclear program, and Trump has obliterated the possibility of a return to negotiations. “His maximum pressure policy has failed,” Nasr said of Trump. “He has only produced a more dangerous Iran.”

DEBATABLE

Agree to disagree, or disagree better? Broaden your perspective with sharp arguments on the most pressing issues of the week. Sign up here.

Meanwhile, ISIS benefits from the breach between Iraq and America. “ISIS suicide and vehicle bombings have nearly stopped entirely,” said Brett McGurk, who until 2018 was special presidential envoy to the coalition fighting ISIS. “Only a few years ago, there were 50 per month, killing scores of Iraqis. That’s because of what we have done and continue to do. These networks will regenerate rapidly if we are forced to leave, and they will again turn their attention on the West.”

Unlike with North Korea, it’s difficult to imagine any photo op or exchange of love letters defusing the crisis the president has created. Most of this country has never accepted Trump, but over the past three years, many have gotten used to him, lulled into uneasy complacency by an establishment that has too often failed to treat him as a walking national emergency. Now the nightmare phase of the Trump presidency is here. The biggest surprise is that it took so long.

Crisis mode:

Opinion

No One Believes Trump which is real bad in am international crisis

Jan. 7, 2020, 8:26 a.m. ET

I

This article is part of David Leonhardt’s newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it each weekday.

“This is where having credibility — and having a president who didn’t lie about everything — would be really, really helpful,” Samantha Power, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations, wrote recently.

A president with credibility would be better able to persuade foreign governments to help protect American diplomats and military members who are now at risk.

A president with credibility would be more likely to beat Iran in the global court of public opinion.

A president with credibility would be able to set clear red lines that might influence Iran’s behavior in coming weeks.

But President Trump has no credibility. His political rise was built on a lie (about Barack Obama’s birthplace). He has told thousands of untruths since becoming president. He appears to be lying again — about why he ordered the assassination of Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s most significant military leader.

Over the weekend, Senator Chris Murphy, the Connecticut Democrat, tweeted the following: “The moment we all feared is likely upon us.” Murphy was referring to Trump’s rash behavior. But Murphy just as easily could have been referring to Trump’s credibility. The United States has entered a serious national security conflict, and the whole world knows our president is a habitual liar.

For more …

Trump and his aides have said he ordered Suleimani’s killing to prevent an upcoming attack on Americans. But that explanation doesn’t make much sense on its face: How would the killing of a general stop an attack? Plus, as Slate’s Joshua Keating writes: “Subsequent reporting suggests there was no ticking bomb. The Soleimani strike was first raised not as a preventive measure, but as a response to an attack on a U.S. facility in Iraq that killed an American contractor a week earlier.”

Vanity Fair’s Abigail Tracy writes that though “the Washington defense and diplomatic communities are not exactly mourning the death of Qassim Suleimani, a powerful Iranian commander … there has been such an erosion in confidence, domestically and abroad, in not only what the Trump administration says but in its ability to construct a lucid foreign policy.”

“When someone has proven over and over again that they are not trustworthy, you can, and in important situations should, stop trusting them,” Vox’s Matt Yglesias writes. Yglesias adds: “Unfortunately, in the escalating crisis with Iran, many people [in the media] seem to have forgotten this basic principle.”

Tim Dickinson in Rolling Stone, on Vice President Mike Pence’s claim that Suleimani supported the 9/11 hijackers: “The administration has provided no evidence that Suleimani personally assisted the transit of future 9/11 hijackers. And the formal investigation into the 9/11 attacks absolves Iran of fore-knowledge and operational involvement in the attacks on New York and the Pentagon.”

The Nightmare Stage of Trump’s Presidency

It’s Time to Calibrate Fears of a Cyberwar With Iran

Reactions: Iran

Opinion

By killing Qassem Suleimani, Trump has achieved the impossible: uniting Iran

Dina Esfandiary

The national hero’s assassination has brought together Iran’s divided government and its exhausted and desperate public

Tue 7 Jan 2020 13.11 EST

For Iranians, the assassination of Qassem Suleimani, the head of Iran’s notorious Quds force, was a profound upset. Suleimani was one of the most influential and powerful men in the Islamic Republic of Iran. He had more sway than the president, spoke to all the various factions, and had a direct line to the supreme leader. Most importantly, he was popular with the general public. One poll, taken as the fight against Islamic State raged, found that 73% of Iranians had a favourable opinion of him. Even so, the large crowds that have turned out on the streets of cities across the country have exceeded predictions. In a sense, though, the formidable show of unity is no surprise. Iran – like any other country – is proud, patriotic, and its people tend to put their differences aisde when faced with an outside enemy.

Iran: dozens dead in crush at Suleimani burial procession

Suleimani oversaw Iran’s regional policy, and as a result is regarded as having spent his lifetime defending his country. When Isis approached the Iranian border after taking over swaths of territory in neighbouring Iraq in 2014, the Quds force were at the forefront, representing the only country willing to commit boots on the ground in the fight to destroy the group. While many in the region viewed Suleimani as a deeply controversial figure, to put it mildly, a significant number of Iranians, Kurds and Iraqis saw him as having been pivotal in stopping Islamic State.

At home, this popularity cut across political lines. Becoming a battle hero is one way to win broad legitimacy, and so it has proved in death as in life. The killing of one of their country’s most senior officials is perceived by Iranians as a violation of sovereignty, and the rally-around-the-flag effect has been notable.

That doesn’t mean all Iranians condoned Suleimani’s actions abroad. In fact, for years people have been complaining about the extent to which the government has seemed to be occupied elsewhere, even as the internal situation deteriorated. In 2018, chants of “no to Gaza, no to Lebanon, I give my life for Iran” and “Leave Syria and think of us” echoed (not for the first time) at protests around the country. When economic times have been hard due to sanctions, both prior to the 2015 nuclear deal and today, Iranians find it difficult to understand why their rulers pour money into the region rather than using it in Iran.

Ordinary people continue to be squeezed by Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign, with no prospects for improvement. This, along with general discontent, led to significant protests in November 2019. These caught the government off guard, but didn’t prevent it swiftly crushing the demonstrations and enacting a nationwide ban on the internet that lasted five days. That response, unsurprisingly, further entrenched the discontent. Trump’s killing of Suleimani, however, has put those concerns on the back burner. Instead, Iranians have adopted a “better the devil you know” approach: unifying across the spectrum, even to the point of standing behind their government, in order to resist increasing US aggression.

And this means that, while Suleimani’s loss is a significant blow for Iran, the strike by the US was in one sense a gift to the Iranian government. It could never have dreamed of achieving such unity in difficult times otherwise.

The assassination has also had the effect of bringing together a divided elite, at least for the time being. Leading figures from the conservative and reformist camps spoke in unison, from the supreme leader, who vowed “revenge”, to the former presidential candidate and leader of the Green movement, Mehdi Karroubi, still under house arrest, who reportedly expressed his condolences. Even the former foreign minister of Iran under the shah, Ardeshir Zahedi, described Suleimani as a “patriotic and honorable soldier who was a son of Iran”.

The US withdrawal from the nuclear deal already meant that moderates had been forced to harden their positions. The Rouhani administration, for example, could no longer actively support dialogue with the US, instead cautiously calling for discussions on the condition that all sanctions were lifted beforehand. Today, even that position has become difficult. Who in the political establishment can expend political capital suggesting rapprochement with the US after what it has done and, importantly, after the level of public mourning? The answer is easy: no one.

With the killing of Suleimani, Trump has accomplished what no one in the Iranian elite thought possible: he has united a fractured, exhausted and desperate Iranian public in a show of unity.

And while these scenes are very far from an equivocal statement of support for the Islamic Republic, they are a resounding message to the world: Iranians will stand with their government in the face of external threats.

• Dina Esfandiary is a fellow at the Century Foundation and co-author of Triple-Axis: Iran’s Relations with Russia and China

MagsJ · January 7, 2020, 1:32pm

My reaction to it is, was it justified or not?

The UK’s objective stance meets with UK approval, which is in-keeping with World Heritage Site protection for the preservation of cultural sites. Too much of historically-relevant Civilisations have already been lost… most recently Syria, in being bombed the f*ck out of.

Meno2 · January 8, 2020, 1:25am

Iran launches missiles on US airbases in Iraq at al-Asad and Erbil – live updates

Pentagon confirms attacks on US and coalition forces targeting ‘at least two bases’

Full report: missiles launched against US airbase in Iraq

Donald Trump says strike against ‘monster’ Suleimani was retaliation – video

Maanvi Singh in San Francisco (now) and Joan E Greve in Washington (earlier)

Key events

20:11 EST

The White House is planning a possible televised address from Donald Trump tonight, according to multiple reports. The White House has yet to confirm any plans.

Confirmed: The WH is planning for a possible address from President Trump tonight. Plans could change but I’m told aides are working on it.

— Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) January 8, 2020

Updated at 20:11 EST

20:06 EST

Iran’s Tasnim news agency is now quoting Iranian officials warning that if the US retaliates against these strikes in Iraq, Hezbollah will fire rockets at Israel — a threat to widen the conflict and bring Iran’s regional allies into play.

Updated at 20:13 EST

19:48 EST

A top adviser to Iran’s supreme leader posted an image of the Iranian flag as news steams in of multiple attacks on US military sites.

pic.twitter.com/Nske7KLJVy

— Saeed Jalili (@DrSaeedJalili) January 7, 2020

The tweet seems to be a counterpoint to Donald Trump’s tweet featuring a low-resolution image of the American flag, following a strike that killed Iranian general Qassim Suleimani.

pic.twitter.com/VXeKiVzpTf

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2020

Updated at 20:02 EST

19:40 EST

Nancy Pelosi says she’s “closely monitoring the situation”, adding that she’d like “needless provocations from the Administration” end.

Closely monitoring the situation following bombings targeting U.S. troops in Iraq. We must ensure the safety of our servicemembers, including ending needless provocations from the Administration and demanding that Iran cease its violence. America & world cannot afford war.

— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) January 8, 2020

In the meantime, defense secretary Mark Esper and secretary of state Mike Pompeo have arrived at the White House. According to CNN, Esper was carrying a large bag.

Updated at 19:49 EST

19:22 EST

The Department of Defense has confirmed: “At approximately 5:30 p.m. (EST) on January 7, Iran launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles against U.S. military and coalition forces in Iraq. It is clear that these missiles were launched from Iran and targeted at least two Iraqi military bases hosting U.S. military and coalition personnel at Al-Assad and Irbil.”

The assistant to the secretary of defense for public affairs, Jonathan Hoffman, said that the US is “working on initial battle damage assessments”:

In recent days and in response to Iranian threats and actions, the Department of Defense has taken all appropriate measures to safeguard our personnel and partners. These bases have been on high alert due to indications that the Iranian regime planned to attack our forces and interests in the region.

As we evaluate the situation and our response, we will take all necessary measures to protect and defend U.S. personnel, partners, and allies in the region.

Updated at 20:03 EST

19:19 EST

Iran’s Tasnim news agency has just reported a second wave of attacks has commenced against the al-Asad airbase in Iraq, according to the Guardian’s Michael Safi. More to come.

Updated at 20:17 EST

19:09 EST

Nancy Pelosi received a phone call from Mike Pence, as she was about to open the House for new session. The speaker’s chief of staff said Pelosi called the vice president back minutes after presiding over the House, and was briefed on Iran’s attacks.

Pelosi reportedly received a note with news of the attacks in the interim.

.@SpeakerPelosi returned a phone call to @VP at 6:34 p.m. tonight after her required presiding over the House at 6:30 p.m. The Vice President briefed the Speaker on the Iranian attacks on facilities housing U.S. troops in Iraq.

— Drew Hammill (@Drew_Hammill) January 7, 2020

Updated at 19:09 EST

18:58 EST

Iran has reportedly fired at multiple US facilities in Iraq

Missiles have fired from Iran at Erbil in northern Iraq, as well as Al Asad Air Base in the west, according to ABC News.

MORE: A U.S. official confirms to @ABC News that ballistic missiles have been fired from inside Iran at multiple U.S. military facilities inside Iraq.

The facilities include Erbil in northern Iraq and Al Asad Air Base in western Iraq, the official said. https://t.co/myq7nvXUgO

— ABC News (@ABC) January 7, 2020

The Guardian has not yet independently confirmed this report.

Updated at 18:58 EST

18:49 EST

The White House press secretary said that Donald Trump “has been briefed and is monitoring the situation” in Iraq.

We are aware of the reports of attacks on US facilities in Iraq. The President has been briefed and is monitoring the situation closely and consulting with his national security team.

— Stephanie Grisham (@PressSec) January 7, 2020

Updated at 18:51 EST

18:45 EST

From The Guardian’s Julian Borger and Patrick Wintour:

An airbase in Iraq’s Anbar province that hosts a US contingent has come under fire, the US military confirmed, after a day in which Donald Trump and the Iranian leadership exchanged threats of retaliatory attacks.

Initial reports said al-Asad base was hit by six rockets. It has previously been a target of an Iranian-backed Shia militia, Kata’ib Hezbollah, whose attacks on US and coalition troops triggered tit-for-tat strikes that culminated in the killing on Friday of top Iranian general Qassem Suleimani.

There were also unconfirmed reports of missile attacks elsewhere in Iraq.

Earlier in the day, the secretary of Iran’s national security council, Ali Shamkhani, said 13 “revenge scenarios” were being considered in the wake of the assassination of Qassem Suleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds force, and that even the most limited options would be a “historic nightmare” for the US.

Ali Shamkhani told the Tasnim news agency: “The 27 US bases that are closest to Iran’s border are already on high alert; they know that the response is likely to include medium-range & long-range missiles.”

Trump responded to Iranian threats in remarks to the press at the White House “We’re totally prepared. And likewise, we’re prepared to attack if we have to,” he said.

US base in Iraq comes under rocket attack as Trump and Iran exchange threats

Updated at 18:51 EST

18:42 EST

According to Iran state TV, Tehran has launched “tens” of surface-to-surface missiles toward Iraq’s Ain Assad air base, which houses US troops.

US military officials have confirmed to reporters that at least six rockets fell on the air base.

The US military confirms an ongoing rocket attack on Al-Asad airbase where US troops are based. It’s the one Trump said Iraq would have to pay for if the US leaves.

— Liz Sly (@LizSly) January 7, 2020

Updated at 18:43 EST

18:25 EST

Iran launches missiles on Iraqi air base where US troops are housed

From senior US military source in Iraq:
“Under missile attack from Iran. These are either cruise missiles or short range ballistic missiles. All over the country.”

— Jennifer Griffin (@JenGriffinFNC) January 7, 2020

In a statement, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said: “The brave soldiers of IRGC’s aerospace unit have launched a successful attack with tens of ballistic missiles on Al Assad military base in the name of martyr Gen.Qasem Soleimani”.

BREAKING: STATEMENT FROM IRGC:

“The brave soldiers of IRGC’s aerospace unit have launched a successful attack with tens of ballistic missiles on Al Assad military base in the name of martyr Gen.Qasem Soleimani.”#Iraq #Iran #AlAssadBase

— Farnaz Fassihi (@farnazfassihi) January 7, 2020

There is no information yet on any casualties or damage from the rockets. The Guardian will have more updates soon.

Updated at 20:00 EST

18:18 EST

Republican senators block a resolution to declare that attacks on cultural sites are war crimes

Although Donald Trump has walked back threats to attack Iranian cultural sites, which are forbidden under international law, Democratic senators today tried to pass a resolution rebuking such attacks.

Senator Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, tried to get unanimous consent to pass the resolution, but his efforts were blocked by the Senate armed services committee chair Jim Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma.

“Therefore be it resolved by the Senate, that attacks on cultural sites are war crimes.”

That’s the resolution Republicans just objected to passing.

Attacking cultural sites in Iran would align us with the most sinister forces and draw us further down the path to illegal war. pic.twitter.com/A6L8TGrTSY

— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) January 7, 2020

!!!

youtu.be/7cXq1S8p7Wg

Mconnel, president

President Mitch McConnell

He’s in charge of everything but shooting at Iran.

By Gail Collins

Opinion Columnist

Jan. 8, 2020

I guess we can get back to impeachment.

Donald Trump announced the Iran crisis was over Wednesday, adding that Americans “should be extremely grateful and happy.”

It’s not entirely clear who he wants us to be grateful to. God? Fate? The ayatollah?

Let’s take a wild guess that the answer is living in the White House.

It was a very short talk — less than 10 minutes — but the president still managed to give himself multiple pats on the back. (“Over the last three years, under my leadership, our economy is stronger than ever before. …”)

And, naturally, blame everything bad on Barack Obama. Trump threw in one whopping inaccuracy — this would be our friendly, peace-loving version of “big fat lie.” He is going to spend the rest of his life claiming the Obama administration paid Iran billions of dollars to get the nuclear peace accord. Utterly false, but you will never talk Trump out of it, any more than you’ll convince him that windmills don’t cause cancer or that he didn’t really win the popular vote.

Dark, suspicious minds wondered if the president had started the whole Iran crisis to get Americans to stop thinking about the impeachment story. Certainly possible. This is a guy who knows how to distract. He golfs, he tweets, he creates crises.

If Trump thought there was any chance of actually getting kicked out of office, God knows what he’d do. Invade another country? Arrest Nancy Pelosi? Pretend to adopt a pet?

Fortunately for him — if not for us — Mitch McConnell is running everything. The House impeachment vote is, of course, a done deal. The bill is going to reach the Senate sometime soon, and the majority leader has been dropping tiny hints that he’s leaning toward giving Trump a pass. (“I’m going to take my cues from the president’s lawyers.”)

During their deliberations, the senators apparently won’t be hearing from John Bolton, who’s now jumping up and down and waving his hand in an effort to volunteer to serve as a witness. Bolton would be the ideal person to ask about Trump’s plan to trade military aid to Ukraine for political dirt on Joe Biden. Granted, he’s a little late out of the gate. Probably been busy searching his conscience. Can’t possibly have anything to do with having a book coming out.

Doesn’t matter. McConnell has expressed zero enthusiasm for the idea of letting Bolton come — unless Donald Trump decides that the Senate’s top priority should be an unconstrained search for the truth. Hehehehe.

It would take four Republican defections just to get Bolton in the door. Even the most theoretically independent of them — even the ones who are at no political risk whatsoever — seem too terrified to stand up to their leader. (O.K., Mitt Romney, one last chance.)

Some of the Republicans might think wistfully that Mike Pence — even Mike Pence — would be a big improvement over the guy we’ve got now. For the country, maybe, but not for Mitch McConnell. Trump is the perfect president for Mitch. For the past three years, the senator from Kentucky has basically been running the government. Somebody has to do it, and the administration’s people are barely capable of opening their office doors.

Trump’s two big victories as president have been the tax cut — organized and pushed through to law by Mitch McConnell — and a raft of new conservative federal judges. Listen to the president and you’d think he had the opportunity to name them all because Barack Obama just forgot — or was too lazy — to fill any openings. (“He gave me 142!”)

In the real world Obama was nominating judges like crazy. McConnell refused to even give them a hearing.

Thanks to his pal and protector Mitch, Trump has it both ways on issues like gun control and prescription drug prices. He can say he’s in favor of change without taking any risk that anything will be presented for his signature into law. Mitch has it all covered — with a lid. The House passed more than 400 bills last year, and about 80 percent of them are sitting around moldering on the Senate runway.

This is incredible power for a politician who’s never been elected to national office and isn’t even popular in his home state — one recent poll put him at the very bottom of the Senate, with a 37 percent positive voter rating in Kentucky.

Nevertheless, the country’s been Mitchified.

It’s really the McConnell era, and we ought to be discussing that every day, particularly whenever Donald Trump is within earshot.

There’s only so much the media can do to make this situation clear. We have certain journalistic rules against beginning news stories with, “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who actually runs the country, expressed support for his minion, Donald Trump . …”

But nobody’s stopping you. Tweet away. It’ll drive the president crazy. No idea how McConnell would react. He’s probably too busy making all the real decisions to notice.

Meno2 · January 8, 2020, 5:02pm

President Trump says Iran stands down!

The chances of his Senate equittal are guaranteed, and his narrative will most certainly suggest a 2020 win!

This was a tremendous politi cal gamble from which he has succeeded to win palms up!

The inversion of politically dynamic , as manifestation of a new dialectic, is testament to his achievement, dare to say.

The pieces of the missing platform have been successfully assembled.

A lot of wind has been removed from the impeachment credibility, by whay Fixed suggested, or the effects of will powered by determination, ( or something akin), and such apparently hidden motives could go by a 'collusive interpretation, but it is simply not quite so.
The ontological rescue consists of the highest level, and it was not Trump who dreamed it up out of an invisible landscape, but someone much higher and more delegated. The frontman had to act as if his apprenticeship was just a debt repaid to an unforgiving god, while in reality it subscribed to Christian values.

It is not really an inside job perpetuated by the mob, and yet they are instrumental.

Kudos!*

*course subject to any possible derailment caused by Iranian dirty tricks hereafter.

promethean75 · January 8, 2020, 5:33pm

hmm. hey yo i wonder if the idiot did this to distract us all from the impeachment thing? think about it. attack iran > iran is obviously outgunned so will only shoot a few bottle rockets at some american bases to get revenge > trump becomes the hero in american protestant redneck backward working class conservative eyes.

i dunno though, i still don’t think this will have any lasting advantage in forestalling the general political current that’s moving toward socialism in the west, so i’m not really disappointed. aside from being a temporary distraction and fix for the mess that trump is in, it sure as shit doesn’t make the middle east any more friendly toward the U.S., which is a good thing. ‘course that idiot never cared about the U.S. in the first place, so even seeing in advance what might result in long term foreign relations with the middle east from that air strike, wouldn’t be something to worry about. this asswipe’s job is to play the bitch of industrial lobbyists and deep state special interest groups and put as much money as he can in his own pockets before he dies. and this will certainly work, because he’ll be dead before western capitalism is eradicated. yeah ol’ don trump’s gonna get away clean i’m afraid. and ya’ll sorry sonsabitches sat right there and let him, too. i don’t know whether to laugh or laugh.

promethean75 · January 8, 2020, 8:44pm

Hey alls I’m sayin is the U.S. has done it before…

“Iran Air Flight 655 was a scheduled passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai via Bandar Abbas, that was shot down on 3 July 1988 by an SM-2MR surface-to-air missile fired from USS Vincennes, a guided missile cruiser of the United States Navy.”

Meno2 · January 9, 2020, 3:51am

promethean75:

hmm. hey yo i wonder if the idiot did this to distract us all from the impeachment thing? think about it. attack iran > iran is obviously outgunned so will only shoot a few bottle rockets at some american bases to get revenge > trump becomes the hero in american protestant redneck backward working class conservative eyes.

i dunno though, i still don’t think this will have any lasting advantage in forestalling the general political current that’s moving toward socialism in the west, so i’m not really disappointed. aside from being a temporary distraction and fix for the mess that trump is in, it sure as shit doesn’t make the middle east any more friendly toward the U.S., which is a good thing. ‘course that idiot never cared about the U.S. in the first place, so even seeing in advance what might result in long term foreign relations with the middle east from that air strike, wouldn’t be something to worry about. this asswipe’s job is to play the bitch of industrial lobbyists and deep state special interest groups and put as much money as he can in his own pockets before he dies. and this will certainly work, because he’ll be dead before western capitalism is eradicated. yeah ol’ don trump’s gonna get away clean i’m afraid. and ya’ll sorry sonsabitches sat right there and let him, too. i don’t know whether to laugh or laugh.

I’ve thought as well in more dramatic terms way back in this forum , .calling it ’ war the dog '., as a way of distracting internal problems and pegging it to outside influences.

Clever, but not new, as You noted.

It appears Trump is a gambler, and makes policy the same way as he ran the Tump casino in Atlantic City.

Then deny failure by not paying the contract is working for him to try to limit over run expenses.

But again, another ingenuity: .he set this up, or was set up in terms of faux entertainment, politics, clowning folksy playing around, grandiose in a feel good way, a good guy to have around, etc

Meanwhile the proof is in the pudding, we are how we always thought of ourselves, robust, go getter Yankees No one can mess around with, he can withstand the lashings of all of the serpentine tongued socialist bums, …

He is THE Man, for all seasons, with or without public sentiment, he is an idol by fiat, even the gods shine fortune upon his countenance, Bless America and for whom it stands, Trump.

Meno2 · January 9, 2020, 8:13pm

POLITICO

NULL

‘I’ve never seen him like that’: Trump defends Iran briefing after GOP Sen. Lee lashes out

President Donald Trump. | Drew Angerer/Getty Image

President Donald Trump on Thursday defended senior administration officials from forceful criticism by Sen. Mike Lee, after the Utah Republican called their classified briefing on the killing of a top Iranian military commander “the worst” he had participated in during his tenure on Capitol Hill.

“I get along great with Mike Lee. I’ve never seen him like that,” Trump told reporters at a White House event, referring to Lee’s fiery remarks Wednesday following the congressional briefing — which featured Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and CIA Director Gina Haspel.

“I had calls from numerous senators and numerous congressmen and women saying it was the greatest presentation they’ve ever had,” the president claimed.

Sprinting across several morning television news programs to address Washington’s heightened tensions with Tehran, Vice President Mike Pence also pushed back against Lee’s complaints.

While Pence said he had “great respect” for Lee and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who joined with his GOP colleague in blasting the briefing, he told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that “the truth is both of them have voted against the military action that’s been taken by this administration in self-defense in Yemen and in the region, and we respectfully disagree with them.”

The briefing Wednesday focused primarily on Trump’s order last week to eliminate Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s elite paramilitary Quds Force, in an overnight U.S. drone strike near Baghdad’s international airport. That assault prompted a missile salvo from the Iranian military against two Iraqi air bases housing U.S. troops.

Although senior administration officials have claimed Soleimani’s removal from the battlefield prevented an imminent threat that could have endangered as many as hundreds of American lives in the region, congressional Democrats have evinced skepticism regarding the intelligence behind the strike.

Lee appeared to echo those concerns, branding Wednesday’s session “the worst briefing I’ve seen — at least on a military issue — in my nine years” in the Senate.

He fumed that the administration officials in attendance warned against even deliberating legislation to restrict Trump’s authority to attack Iran, knocking their statements as “un-American” and “unconstitutional.”

“They had to leave after 75 minutes while they’re in the process of telling us that we need to be good little boys and girls and run along and not debate this in public,” Lee said. “I find that absolutely insane.”

In an interview with NPR on Thursday, Lee sought to clarify that his anger “was not about the Soleimani killing” but was “instead about the possibility of future military action against Iran.”

“I want to be clear: With respect to the strike against Soleimani, that was arguably lawful. I still have questions that remain unanswered on that point. I’m going to set that aside a moment, and I’m going to assume for purposes of this discussion that that may well have been lawful,” Lee said.

“What I’m most concerned about is about where that goes from here,” he continued. “What comes next? Is there another strike coming against Iran? If so, at what point do they need to come to us seeking an authorization for the use of military force? The fact that they were unable or unwilling to identify any point at which that would be necessary yesterday was deeply distressing to me.”

The briefing has prompted both Lee and Paul to throw their support behind a resolution offered by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) aimed at forcing the president to halt military action against Iran if not authorized by Congress except in a case of an imminent threat. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also announced Wednesday that the chamber would vote Thursday to limit Trump’s war-making powers.

“Mike and Rand Paul disagreed because they want information that, honestly, I think is very hard to get. It’s OK if the military wants to give it, but they didn’t want to give it,” Trump said. “And it really had to do with sources and information that we had that really should remain at a very high level. Could we individually maybe give one or two of them some information? Possibly, if we can do that.”

On “Fox & Friends,” Pence praised Lee as a “great conservative and a great leader” and said the administration had “honest differences of opinion” with the two senators regarding U.S. policy in the Middle East.

“But let me assure your viewers, I was there every step of the way,” Pence said. “And while to protect sources and methods, we’re simply not able to share with every member of the House and Senate the intelligence that supported the president’s decision to take out Qassem Soleimani, I can assure your viewers that there was a threat of an imminent attack.”

Pence was also pressed Wednesday by NBC News’ Savannah Guthrie on “Today” as to why the administration briefers could not, in a secure setting in the Capitol, share with lawmakers the nature of the threat Soleimani posed.

“Well, some of that has to do with what’s called sources and methods, Savannah,” he responded. “That if we were to share all of the intelligence — and, in fact, some of the most compelling evidence that Qassem Soleimani was preparing an imminent attack against American forces and American personnel also represents some of the most sensitive intelligence that we have — it could compromise those sources and methods.”

Meno2 · January 11, 2020, 12:37am

POLITICS NEWS

As Pelosi prepares to transfer impeachment articles, Trump signals he might block Bolton testimony

Trump said in an interview that he would “have to” invoke executive privilege to block John Bolton from testifying in the Senate trial.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) walks back to her office after leaving the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 10, 2020.Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Jan. 10, 2020, 12:02 PM EST / Updated Jan. 10, 2020, 4:26 PM EST

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a letter to Democratic lawmakers on Friday that she will consult with them Tuesday as she announced steps to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Pelosi’s announcement comes as President Donald Trump says he’d block his former national security adviser from testifying in the Senate impeachment trial.

The speaker’s letter suggested that the House could name its managers, who will act as the prosecutors for the Senate trial, and transmit the two articles of impeachment against the president as soon as next week. But Pelosi gave no specific indication of exactly when she intends to send the articles to the Senate, a step that is necessary for the trial to begin.

“I have asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler to be prepared to bring to the floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate,” she wrote. “I will be consulting with you at our Tuesday House Democratic Caucus meeting on how we proceed further.”

“In an impeachment trial, every senator takes an oath to ‘do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.’ Every senator now faces a choice: to be loyal to the president or the Constitution,” she continued.

This browser does not support the video element.

Asked Friday morning if she would submit the articles to the Senate next week, Pelosi would only tell reporters at the Capitol, "We’ll see.”

Trump, in a Fox News interview excerpt released Friday, called Pelosi’s actions “ridiculous,” adding: “She should have sent them a long time ago. It just belittles the process.”

Trump added that he thinks he would “have to” invoke executive privilege to block his former national security adviser John Bolton from testifying in the Senate impeachment trial, saying it would be “for the sake of the office.”

When asked by Fox News’ Laura Ingraham why he would not let Bolton testify, Trump said, “I have no problem, other than one thing: You can’t be in the White House as president — future, I’m talking about future, many future presidents — and have a security adviser, anybody having to do with security, and legal and other things. …”

Asked if he would invoke executive privilege, Trump said, “Well, I think you have to, for the sake of the office.”

Trump told reporters at the White House on Thursday that he wouldn’t mind a Senate deal on witnesses if it meant that his defense could also call people to testify who are of interest to Republicans. When asked whether he’d object to his former national security adviser testifying, Trump said it would be up to the Senate, but protecting executive privilege was critical.

The administration has tried to prevent several top officials from testifying in the House and Senate proceedings, frustrating Democrats who have called for their testimony. Bolton, a key figure in the impeachment saga who did not testify during the House inquiry, said earlier this week he would be willing to testify if subpoenaed by the Senate.

Fighting over process

In her letter to colleagues on Friday, Pelosi sharply criticized Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., for actions that she said show his partiality toward Trump. McConnell has said he has enough Republican votes in the Senate to move forward with his plan for the impeachment trial without the support of the Democrats demanding witness testimony. He has also said that he is working in coordination with the White House counsel in preparation for the trial.

“For weeks now, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has been engaged in tactics of delay in presenting transparency, disregard for the American people’s interest for a fair trial and dismissal of the facts,” Pelosi said.

“Leader McConnell’s tactics are a clear indication of the fear that he and President Trump have regarding the facts of the president’s violations for which he was impeached,” she added.

When asked at the Capitol about Pelosi saying she could send the articles, McConnell simply responded, “About time.” He later told reporters, “We’ve been asking to get started for the last, how many weeks has it been now? And we’ll get about it as soon as we can.”

The majority leader added, “Look, we’re just getting started,” when asked whether he thought the trial would need to be wrapped up before Trump delivers his State of the Union address early next month. “I’m glad we now have the option to do it. And it’s been a long wait, I’m glad it’s over.”

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement on Pelosi’s announcement that his Democratic colleagues "are ready for the trial to begin and will do everything we can to see that the truth comes out.”

Building pressure

Pelosi’s announcement comes after several Democrats in the House and Senate publicly said this week that she should relent and send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, although some of those Democrats later walked back those statements.

For weeks, Democrats have been calling for the testimony of several top administration officials who they say had direct knowledge of Trump’s efforts to get Ukraine to investigate Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, while withholding nearly $400 million in military aid to the country and a White House meeting for its president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

The speaker told reporters Thursday that she would send the articles “when I’m ready” and explicitly said she wouldn’t hold them “indefinitely,” but pressure has been building on her from within her own party as well as from Republicans to transmit them.

McConnell added to that pressure when he said Thursday that he supports a resolution offered by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., that would allow for the dismissal of the articles if Pelosi decided not to send them over.

McConnell has said the first phase of the trial would include “arguments from the prosecution, arguments from the defense” and a “period of written questions” submitted by senators of both parties. The majority leader, however, did not say whether Republicans would agree to hearing witness testimony, although he has said he would want the trial to adhere to the precedent set during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, in which the Senate decided later in the proceedings on whether to call witnesses.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the Senate president pro tempore and Finance Committee chairman, criticized Pelosi in a statement Friday for what he called her “pointless delay,” saying the speaker threw Congress into “unnecessary chaos.”

“From the beginning, it’s been unclear what the goal of this hurry-up-and-wait tactic was or what the country stood to gain,” he said. “We now know the answer was nothing. We’ve had three needless weeks of uncertainty and confusion, causing even more division.”

The trial will likely put the five Senate Democrats running for the Democratic presidential nomination at a disadvantage in the race, as they will need to be present for the trial to act effectively as jurors. The trial could begin ahead of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, both slated for early next month.

Meno2 · January 11, 2020, 12:39am

BBC News
menu
Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize not Abiy Ahmed
10 January 2020 Africa
Share this with Email Share this with Facebook Share this with Twitter Share this with Whatsapp
Image copyrightAFPDonald Trump
US President Donald Trump seems to think that he was overlooked for last year’s Nobel Peace Prize.

Why, what did he say?
“I’m going to tell you about the Nobel Peace Prize, I’ll tell you about that. I made a deal, I saved a country, and I just heard that the head of that country is now getting the Nobel Peace Prize for saving the country. I said: ‘What, did I have something to do with it?’ Yeah, but you know, that’s the way it is. As long as we know, that’s all that matters… I saved a big war, I’ve saved a couple of them.”

A video clip of him talking to supporters at a campaign event in Toledo, Ohio, on Thursday evening was shared on Twitter:

Presentational white space
Who was he talking about?
Although he did not name the Nobel Peace Prize winner or the country, it is clear that Mr Trump was referring to Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.

Mr Abiy, 43, is Africa’s youngest head of government.

Image copyrightAFP
Image captionMr Abiy has been praised for introducing a series of reforms
He came into office in April 2018 after months of anti-government protests forced his predecessor to resign.

Mr Abiy has introduced massive liberalising reforms to Ethiopia, shaking up what was a tightly controlled nation.

He freed thousands of opposition activists from jail and allowed exiled dissidents to return home. He has also allowed the media to operate freely and appointed women to prominent positions.

And in October last year, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize - the only head of state to win the prize since Mr Trump was elected in 2016.

ADVERTISEMENT
Why did he win the Nobel Peace Prize?
The Norwegian Nobel Committee said Mr Abiy was honoured for his “decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighbouring Eritrea”.

The two countries fought a bitter border war from 1998-2000, which killed tens of thousands of people. Although a ceasefire was signed in 2000, the neighbours technically remained at war until July 2018, when Mr Abiy and Eritrea’s President Isaias Afwerki signed a peace deal. So for two decades, the long border was closed, dividing families and making trade impossible.

The Nobel Committee said it hoped the peace agreement would help to bring about positive change to the citizens of Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Since the peace deal with Eritrea, Mr Abiy has also been involved in peace processes in other African countries, the committee said.