Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, January 05, 2020

01/05 Links: Inside the Plot by Iran’s Soleimani to Attack US Forces in Iraq; Podhoretz: Attack on Qassem Soleimani was deterrence, not escalation; Trump name-checks 'Squad': 'They hate Jewish people'

From Ian:

Inside the Plot by Iran’s Soleimani to Attack US Forces in Iraq

In mid-October, Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani met with his Iraqi Shi’ite militia allies at a villa on the banks of the Tigris River, looking across at the US embassy complex in Baghdad.

The Revolutionary Guards commander instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful militia leaders to step up attacks on US targets in the country using sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran, two militia commanders and two security sources briefed on the gathering told Reuters.

The strategy session, which has not been previously reported, came as mass protests against Iran’s growing influence in Iraq were gaining momentum, putting the Islamic Republic in an unwelcome spotlight. Soleimani’s plans to attack US forces aimed to provoke a military response that would redirect that rising anger toward the United States, according to the sources briefed on the gathering, Iraqi Shi’ite politicians, and government officials close to Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi.

Soleimani’s efforts ended up provoking the US attack on Friday that killed him and Muhandis, marking a major escalation of tensions between the United States and Iran. The two men died in air strikes on their convoy at a Baghdad airport as they headed to the capital, dealing a major blow to the Islamic Republic and the Iraqi paramilitary groups it supports.

Interviews with the Iraqi security sources and Shi’ite militia commanders offer a rare glimpse of how Soleimani operated in Iraq, which he once told a Reuters reporter he knew like the back of his hand.

Two weeks before the October meeting, Soleimani ordered Iranian Revolutionary Guards to move more sophisticated weapons — such as Katyusha rockets and shoulder-fired missiles that could bring down helicopters — to Iraq through two border crossings, the militia commanders and Iraqi security sources told Reuters. (h/t Zvi)

John Podhoretz: Attack on Qassem Soleimani was deterrence, not escalation

To all those terrified by the prospect of the Iranian response to the killing of Iran’s terror master, Qassem Soleimani, consider the horrors visited upon the United States after these events:

- The Seal Team Six killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in 2010.
- The killing of ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi in October 2019.

Hmmm. No horrors, actually. Those killings seem to have hollowed out the heart of those monstrous organizations.

Well, surely there are even worse examples that have been visited upon Israel due to its aggressive military acts. Let’s take a look:

- Israel destroyed an aborning nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981 and one in Syria in 2007.
- Israel targeted and killed father-and-son Hezbollah commanders, the Mughniyahs, in 2008 and 2015, as well as Hamas No. 2 Ahmed al-Jabari in 2012.

In all these cases, the organizations and governments struck by Israel vowed hellish revenge. But while hostilities persisted, the hellish specific revenge that was promised — even guaranteed — never came.

Why?

For peaceable people, the idea that the use of force is sometimes the only possible counter to the use of force can be hard to take. If a cycle is begun by acts of destruction, how can addressing it through other acts of destruction be anything but … destructive?

The answer is that all acts of destruction are not equal.

Those who destroy first do so because they are not peaceable — or rather, they do not see peace as the most desirous condition.

Sorry. Here’s a second video where my son helped boost the audio. pic.twitter.com/fbWSL55Oji
— JJ PI (@PoliticalIntent) January 5, 2020

Trump name-checks 'Squad' at evangelical rally: 'They hate Jewish people'

President Trump blasted three of the four freshmen congressional Democrats known as "The Squad" in front of an audience of his evangelical supporters in Miami on Friday, accusing them of holding anti-Semitic views.

“These people hate Israel. They hate Jewish people,” Trump said at the launch of his "Evangelicals for Trump" group inside a megachurch. “I won’t name them. I won’t bring up the name of Omar, Tlaib, AOC. I won’t bring that name up. Won’t bring it up. I will not bring it up."

The president was referring to U.S. Reps. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.; Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.; and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. The Squad member he did not mention was U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass.

The three lawmakers have drawn the ire of conservatives for their criticism of Israel since taking office last January. Omar and Tlaib were among 17 members of Congress who voted against a resolution to condemn the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement in July.

Omar was accused of anti-Semitism last year for her criticism of Israel and tweeting that a prominent lobbying group was paying members of Congress to support the country. The comment drew rebuke from Democrats as well as Republicans.

Writing about Sarah Tuttle-Singer's work sometimes gets me into trouble. Perhaps that is why it is fun.

Her Jerusalem Drawn and Quartered: One Woman's Year in the Heart of the Christian, Muslim, Armenian, and Jewish Quarters of Old Jerusalem is a poignant and transgressive memoir. It is about love and hatred, happiness and pain and family. This book is very personal and Tuttle-Singer writes in a casual style about her life as a young woman who recently made aliyah. She attempts, layer by layer, to expose her feelings and her life from her journey as a blondie Jewish kid growing up around Los Angeles grappling with the fact that she watched her mother die from cancer.

It is a story of growing into adulthood in the Old City with two children, an absent ex-husband, a rapist, Arab stone-throwers, taxi-drivers with opinions, and the never-ending conflict before her eyes as she explores Jerusalem, sometimes by rooftop at midnight, as the new media editor for the Times of Israel.

Tuttle-Singer is (or was) torn by the fact that her son will shortly be called into the IDF. As a Californian Jew and Israeli who cares about the Jewish people, she is ripped between love and fear. I cannot begin to imagine what that must feel like. Tuttle-Singer knows that she is raising her children in a wild part of the world and shortly she will probably give up her young son to the Israeli military.

The value of Jerusalem Drawn and Quartered is that it is deeply personal. This book is not a political analysis, although it has definite political implications. It is not a history text, although history darkly hovers in the background. It is a memoir of a young Jewish woman learning about Israel and the Old City through exploration from childhood to adulthood. This is a painful story of a woman who has devoted herself to understanding what it means to be a Jew and to raise her children within Eretz Israel.

I have written about Sarah Tuttle-Singer before and although we are not friends, we are certainly not enemies. She is also despised by many who I know within the Jewish community, both Israeli and diaspora. Nonetheless, this is a book that should be read because it is honest, from the heart, and intelligent.

Naturally, this does not mean that I do not have my criticisms.

The virtue of Tuttle-Singer's writings is her appeal to basic human decency and her joy in social exploration. She is a hopeful "progressive" raising two children in Israel and what she wants more than anything is peace. Who doesn't? One of the difficulties with Tuttle-Singer's writings, however, is in the grey line between beautiful description and hyperbole. She is excellent at the former but often wanders into the latter, but that is a minor criticism. What she struggles with most is -- aside from her rape by the "Grey Man" in Jerusalem and the death of her mother -- is finding a balance within the never-ending conflict between Israeli Jews and Israeli Muslims.

The blood and the murder and the intifadas are always present in the background. Her fear for her own children is always there. Where she seems to find healing is in the gold between the cracks. Among the themes of this book this one struck me as central:

"Do you know what they do with broken objects in Japan?" my mom had asked me after my first heartbreak, when I lay in bed staring at the ceiling, my heart shattered into several jagged pieces. "They don't throw them away, sweet girl. They repair them. They melt gold and mend the everyday clay objects with the precious modern material."

This is precisely what Tuttle-Singer is endeavoring to do with her book. She wants very much to heal "the broken places" with "gold," i.e., with human decency and understanding because not only does it make it more beautiful, but stronger, as well.

What saddens me about Tuttle-Singer's writings, both in this book and in her Times of Israel column, is that there are reasons why she is not well-liked among many within the pro-Jewish / pro-Israel community. The primary reason is that she often seems to favor the Arabs over the Jews in terms of "the conflict." I do not doubt that she would take extreme exception with that characterization, but as a progressive defender of the underdog, it is natural as day. The problem is that there are about 400 million Arabs surrounding 7 million Jews who, for the most part, do not want those Jews in their midst.

Sarah does not seem to quite get that.

It, therefore, saddens me that she has earned the malice of many of my friends.

But I also understand why.

They see her as squishy and naive in the face of the enemies of the Jewish people and, thus, she is sometimes not trusted. Some even think of her as a traitor to her own people who has hurt some of our best friends, like Ryan Bellerose.

What I think is that she desperately wants peace -- for the sake of her own children and the Jewish people -- and is willing to bend far-over backward in her political thinking toward that effort. I find her writings to be intelligent, well-meaning, and a little naive, but, heck, she's the one who lives in Israel. I am still in California.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Qassem Soleimani's funeral procession in Baghdad saw thousands of mourners shouting "Death to America!"

His coffin was in a Chevrolet, perhaps the most American car there is.

Social media in Arabic enjoyed this irony a great deal.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Here are the signs you can download and print for the Solidarity March from the ADL:

Nothing about Jews. Nothing about antisemitism. Just generic anti-hate posters.

There are two big problems with this.

One is that by generalizing a rally against antisemitism into a squishy, generic anti-hate rally, it no longer points out the issue. Anti-semitism is a fundamentally different kind of hate than other bigotries because it is equally ascendant among all groups - even including Jews. Victims of other bigotries can be antisemitic. The rich and the poor, the right and the left - no one is immune. The rally should be specific about those who are attacking and hating Jews and it should point out why the disease of antisemitism can affect anyone. If one wants to draw lessons from antisemitism to other bigotries, great - but don't say that those who hate Jews are similar to those who hate people of color or immigrants. Pretending to universalize the message to cover everyone waters down the message and does nothing to protect the Jews who are under daily attack. People who hate Jews almost never realize it and believe themselves to be fair judges of other people - because they always like some Jews.

The other problem is that sometimes, one should hate. No less an authority than King Solomon said there is a time to love and a time to hate. Should be not hate neo-Nazis? Should we not hate those who want to destroy the Jewish state or America? Should we not hate people who want us dead? Maybe Christian theology says otherwise, but Judaism believes there is a proper time for hate. So "saying no to hate" not only waters down the fight against antisemitism, it is not even true! The people attending the rally presumably hate the philosophies that are used to justify attacks on Jews - and they should!

The rally should be one of Jewish pride, Jewish defiance and solidarity with Jews, as the AJC's downloadable signage says:

I don't want to rain on the parade, so to speak. It is very important to get as many people as possible to stand together against antisemitism, and the subtext of being against antisemitism is there, as I'm sure most of the speeches will mention. Some of the chants being planned specify the issue.

But one cannot imagine a "Black Lives Matter" rally being watered down to "All Lives Matter" - it would be an insult. And the downplaying of the specificity of hate towards Jews can easily turn the rally from an important statement to the world into a mushy, generic event that no one will remember.

Don't let that happen.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

01/04 Links: Ben Shapiro: Trump Taking Out Soleimani Just Made The World A Better, Safer Place; Yes, Targeted Killings Work; NY Times Reporter Blames White Nationalism for Anti-Semitic Attacks in New York

From Ian:

Ben Shapiro: Trump Taking Out Soleimani Just Made The World A Better, Safer Place

On Thursday, in the most audacious and brave move of his presidency, President Trump ordered the killing of Iran’s top terrorist, Qassem Soleimani — a man who was also the top general of the country. Commentators have compared Iran’s loss of Soleimani to the loss of the Defense Secretary, head of the CIA, and the head of the FBI simultaneously. Soleimani was the man closest to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and some speculated that he would succeed Khamenei at some point. Now, he’s been reduced to pulp.

His death makes the world a significantly better and safer place. Soleimani was responsible for the killing of hundreds of American troops in Iraq (by State Department estimates, 17 percent of all Americans killed in Iraq were Soleimani’s handiwork), the arming of Hezbollah in Lebanon with tens of thousands of rockets, the Houthi terrorism in Yemen, the building of Islamic Jihad, and a bevy of terror plots all around the world, including the latest assault on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Speculation that this represents an “act of war” is utterly baseless — Soleimani is a terrorist who was killed while abroad, in Iraq, planning further acts of terrorism.

Suggestions that the Trump administration is responsible for “escalation” with Iran — after months of Iranian aggression in international waters and in foreign countries, after downing an American drone and attacking an American embassy — are absurd and morally disgusting. When Nancy Pelosi tweets that it is “disproportionate” to kill a terror leader planning action against Americans and our assets and allies, she’s not just reflecting moral confusion — she’s evidencing moral foolishness of the highest order.

There is a lot to be nervous about here. Is the Soleimani killing part of a broader American strategy with regard to Iran, or a supposed one-off? Has the U.S. hardened its assets on the ground in the Middle East in preparation for Iranian retaliation? Are America’s allies ready for the surge in terrorism that will surely follow, given the Iranian government’s need to show strength in the face of this devastating loss?

With all of that said, it’s obvious that President Trump was attempting to restore a deterrence against Iran that had been completely disintegrated by the Obama administration. History didn’t begin with Trump, and Iranian aggression didn’t start with the end of the Iran nuclear deal. Far from it. Iran has become more powerful and aggressive thanks to the overt planning of the Obama administration.

President Obama’s preferred strategy with Iran was wishful thinking and bribery. The Obama administration openly lied to the American people, claiming that there was a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian government that would be elevated through signing them checks and ushering them into the world economy. That was utter nonsense, as national security aide Ben Rhodes later admitted. The Obama administration engaged in the worst sort of appeasement, guaranteeing billions of dollars in economic growth to a regime dedicated to the destruction of American interests around the world and hell-bent on regional domination.

Trump: Soleimani's Reign of Terror Is Over

President Donald Trump on Friday said the United States should have taken out Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani a long time ago noting the violent acts recently led by the terrorist leader. The Washington Free Beacon is a privately owned, for-profit online newspaper dedicated to uncovering the stories that the powers that be hope will never see the light of day.

Commentary Magazine Podcast: The Day After Soleimani’s Death

A special episode of the COMMENTARY podcast unpacks the events of the last several weeks in the Middle East, culminating in a targeted strike on Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Commander Qasem Soleimani.

In Just A Few Months, Trump Has Taken Out Some Of The World's Top Terrorists

President Donald Trump has taken out some of the world’s top terrorists in a matter of months, approving military raids and strikes that have decapitated the leadership of various terror-affiliated organizations.

The death of Qasem Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s elite Quds Force, on Thursday night, was just the latest in a line of successful assassinations by the Trump administration.

Hamza bin Laden
While it is unclear when exactly Hamza bin Laden, the son of late al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, was killed, Trump confirmed his death in mid-September. The younger bin Laden was taking on a more prominent role in al-Qaeda before he was killed in a U.S.-led counterterrorism operation in South Asia.

The State Department had put out a $1 million reward for information on bin Laden’s whereabouts in early 2019, but reports say he may have been killed anytime between 2017 and 2019.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed during a Trump-approved U.S. special forces raid in late October.

The raid reportedly lasted about two hours and took place at al-Baghdadi’s compound in Syria. al-Baghdadi was chased into a tunnel by a special forces canine and, after reaching a dead end, the ISIS leader killed himself by detonating a suicide vest. Three children were also killed in the blast.

Trump later gave a medal to Conan, the dog who successfully chased down al-Baghdadi.

Noah Pollak: Yes, Targeted Killings Work

One of the main arguments against the strike that killed Qassem Soleimani is that targeted killings of terror leaders are ineffective: They invite escalation and reprisals, and the removal of senior terrorists doesn’t degrade the effectiveness of the groups they lead because they can be quickly replaced.

But this argument doesn’t hold up to the experience of recent history. Take two examples of targeted killing campaigns against terrorist groups in the past 20 years: Israel during the Second Intifada, and the Obama administration campaign against al-Qaeda.

In both campaigns, Israel and the U.S. combined precise intelligence with precision-guided munitions to systematically eliminate the leadership and top operatives of dangerous terrorist groups. The key to these campaigns was that they weren’t one-offs — they were sustained over the course of years.

During that time, in places like Gaza, Afghanistan, and the tribal regions of Pakistan, targeted killings did much more than symbolically remove terror leaders from the battlefield. They helped cripple the effectiveness of terror groups by forcing them to shift from offense to defense.

Instead of recruiting followers and planning attacks, they had to spend time and energy worrying about security. The sophisticated intelligence employed by the U.S. and Israel raised suspicions of informants. Distrust grew. The ability of operatives to propagandize, communicate, plan, and move freely was undermined as every phone call and meeting raised the specter of surveillance or a missile strike. As leaders were killed off and replaced, only for the replacements themselves to be killed, morale suffered.

There is nothing "disproportionate" about killing an enemy commander, in a war zone -- where U.S. troops are deployed according to proper legal authorities -- who is planning and executing attacks on U.S. personnel. https://t.co/z4zAiLAatP
— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020

Don't be terrorized by symbolism

The Daily Express writes:

A flag isn't terrifying.

Iran, and most Muslim nations, are very attuned to symbolism. Symbolism is often more important than reality.

The idea of a red flag over this mosque is brand new. It's never been done before. So the only way to know how serious this is is by believing the Iranians.

The red flag is no more (or less) serious than their rhetoric of revenge is.

But they know that naive Westerners are frightened by things like this, hence the Daily Express calling it "terrifying."

It isn't terrifying. It is a flag.

(There is a faint precedent for the idea of a red flag meaning revenge, as there is a red flag over Imam Hussain’s shrine in Karbala, Iraq, symbolizing that his death was never avenged. Some other Shiite graves have red flags for the same reason, it appears.)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

01/03 Links Pt2: Melanie Phillips: Anti-Semitism is the ultimate marker of cultural derangement; Stop Blaming Jews for Anti-Semitism; Palestinian Boys Are Raised to Be "Martyrs"

From Ian:

Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks: The keys to understanding American anti-Semitism — and fighting back

The shocking events in Monsey, together with those in Jersey City, Poway, and Pittsburgh, are proof that the darkness has returned. It has returned likewise to virtually every country in Europe. That this should have happened within living memory of the Holocaust, after the most systematic attempt ever made by a civilization to find a cure for the virus of the world's longest hate - more than half a century of Holocaust education and anti-racist legislation - is almost unbelievable.

Cyberspace has proved to be an effective incubator of resentment. The Internet is particularly dangerous for loners, people in whom the normal process of socialization - learning to live with others who are not like us - has broken down.

When bad things happen, bad people ask, "Who did this to me?" They cast themselves as victims and search for scapegoats to blame. The scapegoat of choice has long been the Jews. For a thousand years, they were the most prominent non-Christian minority in Europe. Today, the State of Israel is the most significant non-Muslim presence in the Middle East. It is easy to blame Jews because they are conspicuous, because they are a minority and because they are there.

Anti-Semitism has little to do with Jews - they are its object, not its cause - and everything to do with dysfunction in the communities that harbor it.

Melanie Phillips: Anti-Semitism is the ultimate marker of cultural derangement

Victim culture originated from the West’s pathological reaction to the Holocaust. The realization of its magnitude did not eradicate Western Jew-hatred; it merely drove it underground.

This set up a terrible resentment that people could no longer blame the Jews for the crimes of which the anti-Semitic West believed they were guilty. The claim of anti-Semitism was perceived to give the Jews a free pass for their misdeeds.

A deep jealousy of anti-Semitism therefore set in. Identity politics sprang up to define groups as victims in order to gain similar impunity.

But there was an enormous difference. These “victim groups” wanted a free pass for actual misdeeds. But the Jews’ perceived threat to humanity existed only in the warped imagination of anti-Semites.

Not only has real Jew-hatred accordingly been denied, but the attention currently given to it has bred yet more by multiplying the resentment. So the anti-Semitism prevalent in black, Muslim or Palestinian discourse has been ignored and white people blamed instead.

In Britain’s Independent, Rivkah Brown wrote that Prime Minster Boris Johnson—a social liberal—was the “acceptable face of white supremacy,” and that the anti-Jewish monster “rising from the slime” was not Corbynism but “white nationalism.”

Similarly, New York’s Mayor Bill de Blasio previously blamed the upsurge in anti-Semitism on “the forces of white supremacy” and “the right-wing movement.” And U.S. President Donald Trump, arguably history’s most pro-Jewish occupant of the White House, is himself accused of inspiring this explosion of Jew-hatred.

Such preposterous claims are the product of a culture that has abolished objective truth and thus reason itself.

The Jews always get it in the neck during periods of cultural turmoil. But more to the point, the Jews produced the moral compass the West has now lost.

So it’s no surprise that they find themselves the principal targets of this madness. This open season against them will only end if Western society abandons its decadent ideologies and recovers its center of moral gravity.

But liberals are descending ever deeper into the vortex of unreason and moral inversion. Anti-Semitism is the ultimate marker of cultural derangement. And so this threat to the Jews isn’t going to end anytime soon.

Caroline Glick: When will American Jewry wake up?

One of the most powerful caucuses in the House is the Congressional Black Caucus. Its leading members publicly support Farrakhan despite his role in propagating anti-Jewish bigotry in the black community.

In the 2016 presidential race, Trump faced near-daily demands – which he met – to reject the endorsement of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke and denounce him. The liberal Jewish establishment refused to accept Trump’s repeated renunciations of his support as genuine.

In the 2008 presidential race, then-Senator Barack Obama was asked once to reject Farrakhan’s endorsement. He refused. 88 percent of American Jews voted for him, and declared him "the first Jewish president."

New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio passed radical bail reform policies that give thugs get-out-of-jail-free cards. Accordingly, last Saturday a woman arrested after violently assaulting three Jewish women in Brooklyn was released from jail without bail. She was arrested again Sunday after attacking a fourth woman, and promptly released again.

DeBlasio blamed the Monsey attack on Trump.

As far as progressive Jewish activists are concerned, DeBlasio’s policies are anti-black. Last week they criticized DeBlasio’s announcement that he was augmenting police patrols in Jewish neighborhoods claiming, "This is what dividing vulnerable communities looks like."

This sort of crazy talk is not cost-free. It is dangerous. Inconvenient truths will not go away just because they are unpleasant.

It is a fact that leftist and black anti-Semites are just as great a threat, if not greater threats to the Jewish community than white nationalist anti-Semites.

It is a fact that the Republican Party rejects anti-Semitism in all its forms and expels anti-Semites found in its ranks, and the Democratic Party enables and advances leftist and black anti-Semites and anti-Semitism.

So long as the liberal Jewish establishment and its members refuse to accept these facts, the attacks against America’s Jews can be expected to increase in frequency and violence.

01/03 Links Pt1: Iranian general Qassem Soleimani killed in Baghdad airstrike; Democrats, Media Attack Trump For Killing Terrorists Responsible For Killing U.S. Soldiers

From Ian:

Powerful Iranian general Qassem Soleimani killed in Baghdad airstrike

Qassem Soleimani, the powerful head of Iran’s Quds Force, was killed in an airstrike at Baghdad International Airport, Iraqi TV and three Iraqi officials officials said Friday.

The US Department of Defense confirmed it had carried out the airstrike.

“General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region,” it said. “General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more.”

The Iraqi officials said the strike also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iran-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces.

Iranian state television said the attack was carried out by US helicopters.

“Two vehicles were attacked with missiles by US forces” and all 10 passengers, including Soleimani, were “martyred,” Iran’s ambassador to Iraq, Iraj Masjedi, told state television.

Noah Rothman: Soleimani Deserved His Fate

This was a long time coming.

The strike President Donald Trump authorized on Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps commander Qasem Soleimani neutralized a bad actor with American blood on his hands. According to a Pentagon estimate, roughly one in six U.S. casualties sustained in the effort to subdue the insurgency during the Iraq war was attributable to Iranian actions. Soleimani took an active part in that campaign, establishing training camps and setting up factories to produce the explosive charges that penetrated American armored vehicles.

Soleimani remained outside America’s grip under George W. Bush, and, when the Obama administration began withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq in 2010, the Shiite militias he controlled proved a critical backstop for an Iraqi president who couldn’t rely solely on the hapless Iraqi Security Forces. When the Obama administration lifted travel restrictions on Soleimani amid its quest to secure a nuclear accord with Iran, one of his first stops was in Moscow, to coordinate Iranian and Russian efforts to crush the U.S.-backed anti-Assad rebellion in Syria.

In the months leading up to Soleimani’s death, Iran had begun prosecuting a region-wide campaign of provocations. In 2019, Iran was responsible for the piracy of foreign-flagged vessels in the critical Strait of Hormuz. It engaged in what the nations Iran targeted called a “sophisticated and coordinated” special forces strike on international oil tankers. Iran downed a multi-million-dollar American surveillance drone, and it executed a sophisticated strike on the world’s largest petroleum processing facility in Saudi Arabia. For all this, Tehran faced no proportionate response from the West.

In December alone, Iranian Shiite proxy forces began targeting joint US-Iraq military facilities in Iraq with increasingly sophisticated missile strikes. There had been ten such strikes by the time Secretary of Defense Mark Esper asked the Iraqi government to help prevent attacks targeting U.S. soldiers on December 16th, though to no avail. A rocket attack by an Iranian-backed militia killed an American contractor and wounded three U.S. troops on December 28. In response, the U.S. carried out retaliatory strikes on the militia’s positions in Iraq and Syria. Tehran did not relent.

Paper I wrote a while ago about Iran’s killing of US and British troops, directed by Qassim Soleimani. These represent only a fraction of the death & misery he inflicted. Killing him was the right thing for President @realDonaldTrump to do.https://t.co/CvPe9har1h
— Rɪᴄʜᴀʀᴅ Kᴇᴍᴘ ⋁ (@COLRICHARDKEMP) January 3, 2020

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal: Iran’s Deadly Puppet Master

Suleimani is no longer simply a soldier; he is a calculating and practical strategist. Most ruthlessly and at the cost of all else, he has forged lasting relationships to bolster Iran’s position in the region. No other individual has had comparable success in aligning and empowering Shiite allies in the Levant. His staunch defense of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has effectively halted any progress by the Islamic State and other rebel groups, all but ensuring that Assad remains in power and stays solidly allied to Iran. Perhaps most notably, under Suleimani’s leadership, the Quds Force has vastly expanded its capabilities. His shrewd pragmatism has transformed the unit into a major influencer in intelligence, financial, and political spheres beyond Iran’s borders.

It would be unwise, however, to study Suleimani’s success without situating him in a broader geopolitical context. He is a uniquely Iranian leader, a clear product of the country’s outlook following the 1979 revolution. His expansive assessment of Iranian interests and rights matches those common among Iranian elites. Iran’s resistance toward the United States’ involvement in the Middle East is a direct result of U.S. involvement in the Iran-Iraq War, during which Suleimani’s worldview developed. Above all else, Suleimani is driven by the fervent nationalism that is the lifeblood of Iran’s citizens and leadership.

Suleimani’s accomplishments are, in large part, due to his country’s long-term approach toward foreign policy. While the United States tends to be spasmodic in its responses to international affairs, Iran is stunningly consistent in its objectives and actions.

The Quds Force commander’s extended tenure in his role—he assumed control of the unit in 1998—is another important factor. A byproduct of Iran’s complicated political environment, Suleimani enjoys freedom of action over an extended time horizon that is the envy of many U.S. military and intelligence professionals. Because a leader’s power ultimately lies in the eyes of others and is increased by the perceived likelihood of future power, Suleimani has been able to act with greater credibility than if he were viewed as a temporary player.

In that sense, then, Suleimani’s success is driven by both his talent and the continuity of his time in positions of power. Such a leader simply could not exist in the United States today. Americans do not allow commanders, military or otherwise, to remain in the highest-level positions for decades. There are reasons for this—both political and experiential. Not since J. Edgar Hoover has the federal government allowed a longtime public servant to amass such levels of shadowy influence.

Despite my initial jealousy of Suleimani’s freedom to get things done quickly, I believe such restraint is a strength of the U.S. political system. A zealous and action-oriented mindset, if unchecked, can be used as a force for good—but if harnessed to the wrong interests or values, the consequences can be dire. Suleimani is singularly dangerous. He is also singularly positioned to shape the future of the Middle East.

Madman theory and setting the agenda for the Middle East

The main criticism of the assassination of Qassem Soleimani and his cronies is that the Trump administration has not thought through the consequences of such an action and it can bring unpredictable and dangerous results.

Yet in a way, that may have been the entire point.

Iran, and Soleimani in particular, have known for many years that they can execute their strategy of slowly taking over the Middle East by doing lots of actions that fall just below the red line of provoking a major reaction. Their actions in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, as well as Gaza and Lebanon, are all intended to build a strong, frightening, impenetrable and inevitable Shiite crescent from Iran to the Mediterranean that would strangle Western interests and force Sunni Arab states into submission.

We have all been watching this play out in slow motion, with Iran hiding behind thinly veiled proxies. Yet according to the accepted rules of international diplomacy, there was little the world could do to disrupt what Iran made appear unstoppable.

Enter the Madman Theory, attributed to Richard Nixon but that Donald Trump has embraced. Killing Soleimani definitely qualifies. All of the carefully calibrated calculations behind Iran's slow drip strategy of full hegemony over the Middle East are out the window. They never expected a response like this.

Suddenly, Iranian actions that seemed safe no longer are.

More importantly, the psychological impact on the Middle East is gigantic. In a few minutes, the perception that Iran is running the show and everyone else is playing defense has been shattered. No longer is Iran setting the agenda. Now it is on the defensive. It can no longer assume that its aggressive moves in Yemen or Iraq will go unanswered. It has no idea what the US might do.

Not only that, but the assassination increases the confidence of the Gulf states in countering Iranian moves. It increases the confidence of Iranian protesters. It increases the resolve of the Iraqi protesters against the pro-Iran government there. It is difficult to think of a more effective, less bloody way to achieve all of these gains.

Does Trump have an agenda for the Middle East? I doubt it. I don't think he wants the US to be heavily involved in the region, rather he wants to support US friends in their own goals.

Proving that America really has the back of its Middle Eastern friends - as opposed to the disastrous Obama desire for appeasement, a mindset that Iran took full advantage of - is the single most positive thing to happen in the region in a very long time. And it could only happen because the person who ordered it is perceived to be unpredictable.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad describe how much Qassem Soleimani helped them

As if we need more reasons to celebrate the timely death of Qassem Soleimani, here is what Islamic Jihad says about him:

Abu Hamza - we think

The spokesman for Al-Quds Brigades, the military arm of the Islamic Jihad movement, Abu Hamza, confirmed Friday that the martyr Qassem Soleimani supervised direct support to Palestine and the transfer of military and security expertise to its jihadists for two decades.

Abu Hamza said on Twitter: "The Al-Quds Brigades bids farewell to a mujahideen leader who has always spread terror in the heart of America and the Zionist entity."

And Hamas:

Al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, said in a statement: "As we mourn the leader Hajj Qassem Soleimani, we remember his progress and his great and wide role towards the cause of Palestine and support for the resistance, as he focused much of his effort towards working to eliminate the Zionist entity and sweeping it off the land of Palestine."

Did you ever notice that the people who say that the US and Europe must stop selling arms to Israel for supposedly "moral" reasons never say anything negative about Iran giving weapons and technology to terror groups to be used against Jewish civilians?

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Gaza terror groups mourning Soleimani; Fatah silent

The reactions to the killing of senior Iranian terror leader Qassem Soleimani are predictable - and they show how much the Western Left is now allied with terrorists.

In the Muslim world, the ones mourning Soleimani are the terrorists and their supporters.

Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah called on more terror in response: "Meting out the appropriate punishment to these criminal assassins... will be the responsibility and task of all resistance fighters worldwide."

A Syrian spokesperson said, "Syria is certain that this cowardly US aggression... will only strengthen determination to follow in the path of the resistance's martyred leaders."

Islamic Jihad said that "America, with its crimes and siding with the Israeli occupation, is the enemy of the nation and the people."

Hamas offered its "sincere condolences to the Iranian leadership and the Iranian people for the martyrdom of Major General Qassem Soleimani - may God have mercy on him - one of the most prominent Iranian military leaders, who had a prominent role in supporting the Palestinian resistance in various fields."

The PFLP "sent its sincere condolences to the Iranian people and their leadership for the martyrdom of Major General Qassem Soleimani, who will not be forgotten by our Palestinian people, his prominent role in embodying the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran by supporting its rights and struggle against the Israeli occupation and supporting the resistance forces and developing their capabilities."

Meanwhile, Gulf News (UAE) celebrated Soleimani's death, reflecting reports of celebrations from Iraqis and others in the Gulf:

The killing of Qasem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, and considered to be the second most powerful man in Iran, after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, marks a decisive victory against Iranian terror.

Arab states have long complained of Iranian interference in their internal affairs.

They also warned the international community that this was simply not a regional problem, but an international one.

This will greatly increase America's prestige in the Gulf and among Arab moderates, even as many weaker Sunni states like Jordan are calling for caution because they are afraid of being caught in the blowback.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

How will Iran respond to the killing of Qassem Soleimani?

Now that it is confirmed that the US indeed did kill Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Force and effectively the second most important person in Iran, responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of civilians and many US troops, here are some thoughts.

Most responses are that this will start a major new war or at least a major escalation with Iran's terrorist proxies targeting US leaders.

First of all, the so-called experts have been wrong every single time they predicted a major response from things Trump decided to do. The "experts" simply aren't.

My guess is that Iran will instruct Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad to shoot rockets into Israel, even though there is no evidence that Israel had anything to do with this (excellent intel, by the way.) This is a face-saving routine and Iran still clings to the idea that escalating things with Israel will get the Muslim world on their side. That isn't true anymore, but this might be Iran's thinking. (Israel closed the ski resort in Mount Hermon anticipating this very scenario.)

Not only Soleimani was killed - also Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iran-backed militias Popular Mobilization Forces, and reportedly Naeem Qasm, Hezbollah's #2 in Lebanon. You have to think that the remaining leaders of Iranian forces and proxy forces are very frightened of being killed themselves. If they escalate, that is a death sentence. I don't think they are that brave.

Furthermore, Soleimani was widely considered a genius in his military and terror activities. He was the one who would have decided on a calibrated response. Whoever is replacing him will probably err on the side of conservatism, because the US is now considered unpredictable - previous administrations would never have done anything like this.

In addition, Iran is hurting from economic sanctions that has already been weakening Iran's military. It seems likely that this attack will embolden Iran's protesters to redouble their efforts, which will strain Iran's military even more. The same thing seems to already be happening in Iraq with protesters against Iranian influence celebrating.

I cannot see the Revolutionary Guards' morale remaining high with the loss of their powerful leader and their countrymen, probably, celebrating.

I do expect a response - Iran is still an honor/shame society and some action, now that the US admitted its role, is deemed necessary. But I think it will be a limited response. Perhaps cyberattacks, perhaps rockets to Israel as I mentioned, perhaps some directed attacks at US troops in Iraq or a 1983 Beirut-style attack against US military installations in Europe.

Today, lots of very dangerous people are very scared. Hezbollah leader Nasrallah is going deeper underground than he already was. Maybe even Kim Jong-Un.

There may be - hell, there will probably be - some unintended consequences. But they happen all the time anyway. The precipitating event is by any measure a very good thing, because nothing could weaken Iran in one blow as much as this attack.

Today, Iran's military is significantly weaker in Iraq, in Lebanon and in Iran itself. Rarely can a single attack affect so much in such a positive way. There will probably be blowback, but it is hard to see how that will help Iran recoup its losses. Iranian leaders want to cling to power above all, and extended global adventures do not help that goal when the regime is already weakened.

It is not a symbolic loss for Iran. It is a major, major blow, and one that might be a permanent and serious wound for the regime itself.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.