Blog

The Central Details of the Soleimani Assassination

The Central Details of the Soleimani Assassination

What happened?

  • On January 3rd, the US used drone strikes to assassinate the leader of Iran’s Quds Force, General Qasem Soleimani, at Baghdad Airport. The airstrike also killed Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) deputy Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and several other individuals.

Who were Soleimani and Muhandis?

  • Soleimani was the head of the Iranian Quds Force. The Quds Force is the branch of the Iranian military that implements its ‘forward defense’ strategy. Soleimani got his military start during the Iran/Iraq War in the 80s. In recent years, Soleimani and the Quds Force fought the Islamic State and other Sunni terror groups in Iraq and Syria. Soleimani put together militias of local Iraqi and Syrian Shia to fight against the Islamic State in their countries. While Trump and the US often get credit in Western media for the defeat of IS, in the Middle East, the people see Soleimani as the hero of the war. 
  • Muhandis was a member of the Iraqi parliament before the rise of IS. After the IS started to threaten the Shia areas in Iraq, the country’s Shia leadership called for the formation of Shia militias to fight against IS, as the Iraqi Army had lot a lot of territory to IS. Along with Soliemani, Muhandis was key to forming the Shia militias in Iraq that fought against IS. After the defeat of the IS the Iraqi government dictated that the Shia militias – including PMFs – were now a part of the Iraqi Defense Department and under the direction of the Iraqi prime minister. 
    • A former US intelligence officer describes Muhandis like an Iraqi general, “The Iraqi PMU commander who died with Soleimani was Abu Mahdi al Muhandis.  He was a member of a Shia militia that had been integrated into the Iraqi armed forces.  IOW, we killed an Iraqi general. We killed him without the authorization of the supposedly sovereign state of Iraq.”
    • It is not clear if Trump intended to target Muhandis or if he was collateral damage. 

Why is it important?

  • General Soleimani is a military official of a government the US is not officially at war with. The US is in an alliance with the Shia government of Iraq and Muhandis is part of the Iraq government’s Security forces. This creates a lot of questions surrounding the legality of the airstrikes and if Trump abused his power.
  • Soleimani and Muandis are important figures in the Middle East. Both men were very important to the fight against the Islamic State and are seen by people in the region as the heroes who defeated the Islamic State. Soleimani is one of the most popular figures in Iran. Iranian experts have compared his stature in Iraq to American WWII heroes Eisenhower and Patton. 
  • The assassination of Soleimani will exacerbate the tensions with Iran. Trump ruined the Nuclear Deal put together by Obama. His maximum pressure campaign has not worked and the tensions with Iran are increasingly turning into a violent conflict. 
    • Soleimani’s stature in Iran will create pressure among the people for some kind of response from Iran. Much like American’s would if a top American official was killed. Trump has now threatened to strike 52 Iranian targets if Iran responds. This is a set up for escalation to war. 
  • The killing of Soleimani – especially with the PMF commander and in Baghdad – has really upset the Iraqis. Iraq did not authorize the strike and see it as a violation of its sovereignty. 
    • Iraq is in a dangerous situation with protesters recently forcing out the prime minister. The protests were directed at the Iraqi government, corruption, and Iranian influence in Iraq. Over 450 protesters were killed by Iraqi security forces over six weeks. The protesters were calling for much-needed election and corruption reform.  
    • There is a lot of instability, poverty, and violence. As the tensions between the US and Iran turn more violent, at least some of it will play out and further destabilize Iran.  

Notes on the breakdown of Iraq/Iran

  • Iraq has a majority Shia Arab population ~60%, ~20%Sunni Arabi, ~20% Kurdish
    • Saddam Hussein long ruled the country as a secular Sunni military dictator. He suppressed any opposition but particularly that of Shia and Kurds. Since the US invasion in 2003 and installing a democracy in Iraq, the Shia have ruled the country.  
  • Iran has a majority Persian Shia population and is ruled by a Shia religious government. There are minority Sunni and Kurdish populations. 

Quick history

  • After the Iraq War, the Iraqi government was dominated by the Shia. The Iraqi Shia were friendly with the Shia government of Iran. This change was a huge benefit to Iran, as Saddam Hussein was brutally opposed to Iran and killed thousands of Iranians, and Iraqi Shia, with chemical weapons. 
  • In 2011, the agreement the US had with the new government of Iraq to keep US forces in the country expired and Obama withdrew most US forces. 
  • By 2014, the Islamic State had grown powerful enough in Syria it was able to take Sunni majority cities in Iraq. The Iraqi military – which was not mostly Shia – largely abandoned the cities to IS. The Islamic State was then able to threaten both the capital of Syria and Iraq. 
  • Both the US and Iran entered the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. In Syria, Iran was aligned with the Syrian government and the US was aligned with the Syrian Kurds. The US saw the Syrian government/Iranian alliance as nefarious and an enemy. In Iraq, both the US and Iran aligned with the Iraq government. The US provided air support and deployed 5,000 troops to Iraq to aid the Iraqi Army. Iran helped arm, fund, train, and guide Shia militia forces – these are the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMFs) – opposed to IS. 
  • By 2018, the US, Iraq, and Iran-supported Shia militias retook all of the IS territories in Iraq.
  • Throughout 2019, Israel has sporadically bombed the Iraqi Shia militias. The US was held as a necessary accomplice to bomb the Shia militias. There have also been occasional rocket attacks against Iraqi Army bases that house US soldiers. These bases are huge and the rockets often hit empty space. The US blamed Iran for using the Shia militias as a proxy force to carry out the attack. The US never provided evidence that the Shia militias carried out the attack or that the operation on the direct orders of Iran. Other sources speculate remnants of the Islamic State are targeting the Iraqi bases.  
  • On December 27th, a US contractor was killed in one of the rocket attacks on an Iraqi base. In response, the US bombed several bases of a Shia militia group, Kataib Hezbollah. The US said the group was responsible for the attack. Overall, 25 people were killed by the US strikes. 
  • On New Year’s Eve, in response to the airstrikes, protesters took to the street outside the US embassy in Iraq. Eventually, they broke into the compound through the visitor’s gate. They entered a lobby of the embassy before protests were dispersed. Protests resumed on New Year’s Day until the Shia PMF leadership called for them to end. 

Lies From the Trump Admin

  • Qasem Soleimani is responsible for 100s of American deaths
    • This claim originates from the period in the Iraq War when the Bush Admin decided that it needed to fight against some Shia militias. Until this point in the war, the US had fought the Sunni insurgency alongside the Shia militias and the Shia Iraqi Army the US was building. While the Shia militias had some influence from Iran, the Shia militia targeted by the US, the Mehdi Army, had a weak relationship with Iran. 
    • While the US was fighting the Shia in Iraq, about 500 Americans were killed. Many of the Americans were killed by EFP. While the Bush administration blamed the EFPs on Iran. It was later revealed the EFPs were all manufactured in Iraq. The Trump administration is now repeating the lies of Bush. This is likely to try to whip up support for his failing maximum pressure campaign and justify his decision to leave Obama’s Nuclear Deal. 
    • Even if Iran – and Soleimani – did have some influence with the Shia militias fighting the US, it is ultimately Bush’s fault for sending American soldiers to Iraq in the first place. Even if Saddam did present a threat, Bush did not have to leave thousands of American soldiers in Iraq to attempt to rebuild the country. He could and should have withdrawn the soldiers long before the US started fighting on both sides of the civil war that was raging in Iraq.
  • Soleimani was killed in self-defense
        • MSNBC analyst Rukimini Calimachi said the evidence that Iran was planning an attack is very thin “According to them, the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is “razor-thin”.” Check out her Twitter thread for details

Trump had no authority from Congress to carry out the strike

  • Soleimani was a general in the Iranian government. For Trump to have carried out a strike against Soleimani he would need some kind of authorization for that. 
    • Generally, the US government will invoke the ‘2001 The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)’ if they are carrying out a targeted drone strike. However, the AUMF only approves the use of force against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Iran is the enemy of both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. 
    • There is also the 2002 AUMF that Congress passed to allow Bush-43 to invade Iraq. The US withdrew forces from Iraq in 2011 and logically the AUMF should have expired. Obama did invoke this AUMF to redeploy US forces into Iraq in 2014 to fight IS. It makes little sense to invoke the 2002 AUMF here as Soleimani fought with the US against IS. 
    • Trump may attempt to claim that Soleimani was a danger to US forces and he had the right to defend US forces. If this is the case, the War Powers Act will require him to submit reports to Congress on his choice to take out Soleimani. If those reports don’t show Soleimani was a present danger to US forces, Congress should seek.

2020 National Defense Authorisation Act (NDAA)

Quick Background Timeline for US-Iranian/Iraqi Affairs

  • In 1953, the CIA worked to overthrow the elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, and replace him with the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Pahlavi was a brutal dictator until his overthrow. Link to NPR Further explaining
  • In 1979, the Iranian people rose up in the Islamic Revolution and removed the Shah from power. Islamic leadership, Ayatollah Khomeini became the Supreme Leader of Iran. During the revolution, students took hostages at the US embassy. The hostages were eventually freed after a long standoff in 1980 that impacted the election and helped Reagan get elected. The US and Iran have had a hostile relationship. 
  • During the 1980s, Iraq – under Saddam Hussein – launched the brutal Iran/Iraq War against Iran. 100,000s on each side would die in the war. Pubically the US-backed Iraq. We provided weapons and intelligence. Including intelligence that was used by Saddam to bomb Iranians with chemical weapons. The war ended near the end of the decade in mostly a draw. 
  • In 1988, the US shot down an Iranian passenger airliner over the Gulf. 290 people were killed. President Bush 41 – “I will never apologize for America. I don’t care what the facts are.”
  • In 1991, the US invaded Iraq to remove Iraq from the oil fields in Kuwait. The US devastated the Iraqi military in the war. 
  • Throughout the 90s the US enforced a strict sanctions campaign against Iraq in an effort to remove Saddam from power. Clinton’s Secretary of State Madelin Albright acknowledged the sanctions caused the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children and the “price was worth it.” 60 Minutes Interview
  • The Bush 43 Administration lied about Saddam producing WMDs and having ties to al-Qaeda/9-11 to push the US to invade and overthrow Saddam in 2003. 
  • After invading Iraq the US disbanded the Iraqi Army. A lot of the army join in with the Sunni insurgency opposition to the US. Parts of the insurgency became al-Qaeda in Iraq. 
  • The US-allied with the Shia against the Sunni opposition. The brutal war killed maybe a million people and ethnically cleansed Baghdad of Sunni. About 4,000 American soldiers died fighting Sunni. 
  • In 2006, Bush realized the Arab Shia majority in Iraq was supported and friendly with the Shia government of Iran, so he changed US policy and started fighting against Shia militias in Iraq. In particular, the US fought a war against the militia of Muqtada al-Sadr. About 500 American soldiers died fighting them. 
  • In 2011, the agreement the US had with the Iraqi government to stay in Iraq ended and Obama withdrew most US forces. 
  • In 2014, the Islamic State had become a threat to the Iraqi government and Obama moved thousands of troops into Iran to combat the Islamic State. Iran – led by Soleimani – raised militias to fight against the Islamic State as well. The militias were key to defeating IS in Iraq and received support from US airstrikes. 
  • By 2018, IS had lost all of its territory in Iraq and is only able to carry out sporadic bombings. The Shia militias were officially absorbed into the Iraqi militaries and were celebrated in the region for defeating IS.  
  • In 2019, Israel bombed Iraqi Shia militias in Iraq. The US is accused of being a necessary accomplice, as the US military largely controls Iraqi airspace. 
  • Several Iraqi bases that house US soldiers were hit with rocket strikes. Up until December 27th, no Americans were killed in these attacks. On the 27th a US contractor working in Iraq was killed. 
Year Zero 90: War Pigs

Year Zero 90: War Pigs

Gen’rals gathered in their masses,
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction,
Sorcerer of death’s construction
In the fields the bodies burning,
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind,
Poisoning their brainwashed minds

Listen to Year Zero

Was Soleimani Lured into a Trap?

Donald Trump says he had to have Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani assassinated on friendly Iraqi soil because of an “imminent” threat to Americans. (Suddenly he believes the intel agencies?) But that seems unlikely since an imminent threat would not have been prevented merely by killing Soleimani.

But now we learn that, according to acting Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi, Soleimani was had gone to Baghdad to deliver a response to a de-escalation proposal initiated by Iran-rival Saudi Arabia. The Daily Mail reports:

Adel Abdul Mahdi, Iraq’s caretaker prime minister, told his parliament on Sunday that President Trump called him to ask for help in mediating with Iran after the American embassy in Baghdad was attacked….

The attack on the embassy on Tuesday unfolded after thousands attended the funerals of the Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah fighters killed in the American airstrikes last Sunday.

If this is indeed the case, Trump’s assassination of Soleimani and others, including an Iraqi military leader, is even worse than it first appeared. It would mean that Soleimani was on a peace mission that Trump had urged on Iraq’s prime minister. In other words, Soleimani was lured into a trap.

This would support Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal’s contention (in recent interviews) that Trump’s strike on Soleimani is right out of the Israeli playbook. More than once, Israeli forces have assassinated Palestinian leaders during truces and discussions on behalf of truces.

bitcoin is Dead: Part 2

bitcoin is Dead: Part 2

Click here for Part 1

For the audio version, check out my podcast A Boy Named Pseu where you can download it on all podcast platforms. (read starts at 8:54)

Read full piece here.

If bitcoin is dead, then everyone abandoned the network

By mere speculation the, WSJ piece claimed “one reason for the slowdown could be the sobering reality that creating new global monetary standards requires more than computer code.”

Yeah, they’re right…

In fact, it takes an entire network of individuals to voluntarily download the required software/client to their computer and connect to the Bitcoin Network.

In order to run a fully-validated node to ensure that each of their transactions is kosher, it takes approximately 8 hours — a couple days to download over 11 years worth of every single transaction on the ledger.

Additionally, miners have to invest in the necessary mining equipment (should they choose to partake in such a role) where ROI is not guaranteed. For more of an in-depth, yet high-level explanation on the technicalities of the Bitcoin Network, I highly recommend Yan Pritkerz’s Inventing Bitcoin: The Technology Behind The First Truly Scarce and Decentralized Money Explained.

Luckily, the growing industries that are surrounding bitcoin are commoditizing supplies and resources to mine and issue the currency. In fact, the need for efficient mining operations is incentivizing the use of renewable energy. Now, nearly 80% of the energy consumed in bitcoin mining is renewable.

Short story long, code is peanuts to the remaining requirements of a new global, monetary policy. It takes the cooperation of strangers all around the world to plug into the network while investing their own resources with the uncertainty of financial gain in return.

Despite all these tedious requirements, this miraculously never stopped anyone from joining the network that is adamantly growing as more people continue to learn about bitcoin from bull-run hypes, and bearish periods of learning, researching, and developing in the ecosystem.

What matters to these voluntary participants is that they collaboratively nurture and cultivate bitcoin’s main end-goal: provide a solution to the failed monetary policy that is the central banking cartel. Their dedication to till the soil of the decentralized, validated, trust-less currency is what helps keep bitcoin alive.

The issuing of the bitcoin currency itself and the participants that operate around it is what powers the network. But that’s only one piece of the pie.

But, you know. Bitcoin is dead.

Did Iran Kill 600 Americans in Iraq War II? No.

Due to the current ubiquity of claims that Iran killed 600 Americans in Iraq War II, I figured it might be worth bringing up the fact that that is a complete and damnable lie.

In the case of Petraeus’s surge against Sadrist forces in Sadr City and Najaf in 2007 and 2008, Sadr was the least Iranian-loyal of all the major Shi’ite factions. The U.S.’s favorites from Dawa and SCIRI were also Iran’s favorites. Sadr wanted the U.S. and Iran both out. (At a couple of points the U.S. chased Sadr into Iran, but that was a self-fulfilling blunder, not proof they were right about him.)

When Petraeus attacked them they responded, not the other way around. (Danny Sjursen was in East Baghdad at that time and confirmed this to me in an interview just a few weeks ago.)

And when they did respond with copper-core EFP bombs, they were made in Iraq by Iraqis. Despite all of Michael Gordon’s claims in the New York Times back then, and all the claims since, no one has ever demonstrated that these bombs came from Iran at all, much less directly from the Qods force.

Here are a couple of blogs full of links from back then:

America Switches Sides in Iraq War

Is Iran Supplying IEDs to the Sunni Insurgency?

Washington Post Liars Caught!

EFPs Are Made in Iraq By Iraqis

And here are a few more articles:

Andrew Cockburn in the L.A. Times

Wired

Surprising honesty in the lying New York Times for once

The Wall Street Journal

Phil Giraldi, another

And of course, many, many great pieces by the heroic Gareth Porter.

Okay. So there you have it.

Update: Former Marine Corps Captain Matthew Hoh writes: “Yes the EFPs were all made in Iraq, in workshops by Iraqis. I was at JIEDDO (joint IED defeat organization) in 2008. … I can confirm the intelligence on all that.”

bitcoin is Dead: Part 1

bitcoin is Dead: Part 1

For the audio version, check out my podcast A Boy Named Pseu where you can download it on all podcast platforms. (read starts at 8:54)

Read full piece here.

Is it, now? Well, haven’t you heard? The 11 year fad of magic internet money is long over. Nobody is buying, trading, selling, or even “HODLing.” This volatile ecosystem of market booms and busts, degenerate gamblers, terrorists and drug dealers has finally bit the dust…at least that’s what the media would want you to think.

According to the Bitcoin Obituaries from 99Bitcoins.com, multiple articles have claimed that bitcoin has “died” 378 times since its genesis, and 40 times in 2019 alone! This fear-mongering narrative has been pushed from the mainstream media, prominent figures in the crypto space, as well as my own friends. Why? Satoshi only knows. Honestly there’s nothing honest about it. Bitcoin is alive and well, and is still very much in its infancy. If you look closely, you might think this infant is gorging itself with one-up mushrooms from Mario Brothers because of the miraculous exponential growth the industry has gone through in 2019.

The goal of this article is to call out the bull against the bitcoin bull market, and use real-world examples of bitcoin’s influential and impactful livelihood.

This will be covered in 7 parts by analyzing the hypotheses that if bitcoin is dead, then

the Mainstream Media isn’t talking about it
everyone abandoned the network
the President didn’t tweet about it
Nigerians aren’t living off it
so is its volatility
it has no value proposition
Conclusion

* (I highly recommend using ctrl/cmd F: “if bitcoin is dead, then <fill in the blank>”) *

The points above will aid in explaining how bitcoin will continue to grow in-spite of regulations and negative rhetoric which plagues the mainstream. The robust, and passionate nature of those who make up the Bitcoin Network are the ones that will carry this sovereign movement from the cradle, and beyond the grave. Bitcoin is here to stay. Let’s debunk some FUD.

If bitcoin is dead, then the Mainstream Media isn’t talking about it

The latest claim of Bitcoin’s demise made my “Today’s News and Views” bar on LinkedIn, where a piece from The Wall Street Journal titled, “If Bitcoin Looks Like It Isn’t Trading, It’s Because It Isn’t” started making the rounds.

The piece claimed that data reported from Flipside Crypto revealed “only 14% of the 18 million bitcoins outstanding exchanged hands during the last week of November, down from more than 50% last year.”

There seemed to be an expectation of increased enthusiasm in BTC. This new interest was to stem from “old money”, seasoned investors, as journalist Flex Yang reports in Bitcoin Magazine. However, Yang claims these investors tend to favor traditional financial products like stocks, bonds or commodities. It seems they just couldn’t stomach the market volatility of BTC.

As we saw in 2019’s “Black Swan” incidents, news stories like Facebook’s launch of Libra, and China considering deploying blockchain-based state policy skyrocketed BTC prices past $10,000. Naturally however, the peak was soon followed by a dip which very well could have been the main motivation for the old-timers to start dumping their BTC, and lowering the price further as we saw in mid-December.

The piece also claimed the majority of the cryptocurrency is controlled by a relatively small group: About 8.5% of wallets hold 99% of all the bitcoin in circulation.

True, but not in the misleading way you might think. Bitcoin isn’t trading because it’s being HODL’d by purest, fan-boy (and girl) HODLers. These are the “true believers” (if you will), or as coined by Trace Mayer, “the HODLers of last resort”. These are the individuals that give bitcoin its true value as a store of value, and believe it will one day replace the current fiat financial system with the hard, sound monetary cure that is bitcoin.

In fact, an analysis from Coin Metrics reported the number of Bitcoin addresses that hold any amount of satoshis reached a new all-time high of 28,393,045 between October and November 2019, from 28,384,557 in January 2018.

Bitcoin Magazine’s Vlad Costea revealed that Coin Metrics co-founder, Jacob Franek, doubted the increase was due to a greater number of individuals withdrawing bitcoin from exchanges, but rather the opposite, “since the overall supply held by exchanges and custodians continues to increase.”

A phrase my mouth keeps running into these days is, “intellectually dishonest.” I’m not entirely sure that’s appropriate in this scenario though. It might be giving the WSJ a bit too much credit by assuming they actually understand how bitcoin works. The WSJ piece fails to take any of the above into consideration. The owners of non-custodial bitcoin wallets are most likely, predominantly HODLers. These HODLers truly understand the value and virtue of bitcoin (which we’ll get into later), and are the ones keeping it from dying.

Podcasts

scotthortonshow logosq

coi banner sq2@0.5x

liberty weekly thumbnail

Don't Tread on Anyone Logo

313x0w (1)

313x0w (1)

313x0w (1)

Pin It on Pinterest