Category Archives: Iran

UPDATED (1/16): NEW COLUMN: Should The U.S. Be The Globe’s Judge, Jury & Executioner?

Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Iran, Iraq, Middle East, Ron Paul, War

NEW COLUMN is: “Should The U.S. Be The Globe’s Judge, Jury & Executioner?” It’s currently on The Unz Review, WND and “The Ludwig von Mises Centre for Property & Freedom.”

An excerpt:

Qassim Soleimani, an Iranian major general, was assassinated by a U.S. drone air strike, at the Baghdad International Airport (BIAP). Soleimani was traveling with one Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Al-Muhandis was an Iraqi, born and bred. He was even elected to the Iraqi Parliament, in 2005, until the U.S. intervened. (Yes, we intervene in other nations’ elections.)

Iraq’s caretaker prime minister, Adel Abdul Mahdi, was furious, denouncing “What happened [as] a political assassination.” Unanimously, Iraqi lawmakers “responded to the Soleimani assassination by passing a nonbinding resolution calling on the government to end foreign-troop presence in Iraq.”

Yes, it’s a complicated region. And America, sad to say, still doesn’t know Shia from Shinola.

The consensus in our country is that “Soleimani deserved to die.” That’s the party-line on Fox News—and beyond. It’s how assorted commentators on all networks prefaced their “positions” on the Jan. 3 killing of this Iraqi-born, Iranian general.

Even Tucker Carlson—the only mainstream hope for Old Right, anti-war, America-First columns like this one—framed the taking out of Soleimani as the killing of a bad guy by good guys:

“There are an awful lot of bad people in this world. We can’t kill them all, it’s not our job.”

However you finesse it, the premise of Tucker’s assertion is that the American government, and the smart set who live in symbiosis with it, gets to adjudicate who’s bad and who’s good in the world.

The debate is only ever over whether the U.S. government should or shouldn’t act on its divine rights as transnational judge, jury and executioner, never over what’s right and what’s wrong.

Stateside, the only inquiry permissible is a cost-benefit calculus. Will the assassination of Soleimani, a military official of a sovereign state, and an avid and effective slayer of Islamic State terrorists—pay strategic dividends for America in the long run?

This is crass pragmatism bereft of principle. It’s currently on display everywhere, even surfacing on BBC News, where a female analyst, an American, was deploying the childish “bad man” meme to outline America’s Disneyfied foreign policy.

This angels-and-demons production always starts with the prototypical evil dictator who was alleged to be messing with his noble people, until the avenging, angelic empire sent a drone to the rescue.

Again, even Tucker, whose antiwar credentials in recent years have been impeccable, conceded that this Soleimani guy probably needed killing, which is the same thing Iraqis old enough to remember America’s destruction of Iraq, circa 2003, would say about President George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Ms. Rice.

So, who’s right? Or, is blind patriotism predicated on accepting that it is up to the U.S. government and its ruling elites to determine who lives and who dies around the world? …

… READ The Rest. The complete column, “Should The U.S. Be The Globe’s Judge, Jury & Executioner?“, is currently on The Unz Review, WND and “The Ludwig von Mises Centre for Property & Freedom.”

UPDATED I (1/16): “Mercer has written one of her best and most well balanced …” on Soleimani and US foreign policy.”

UPDATE II: 

“The reverend name is Ibrahim Naseir. His church in Aleppo was destroyed by NATO-sponsored fundamental Jihadists. The same terrorists who almost ethnically cleansed Syrian Christians from their towns and cities. General Soleimani crushed those Jihadists.”

Suleimani: America Is Judge, Jury And Executioner; Decides Who Lives, Who Dies

America, Argument, Conservatism, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, Republicans

“Suleimani deserved to die.” That’s the consensus on Fox News. It’s also how assorted commentators on the channel prefaced their “positions” on the killing of this Iranian.

Major General Qassim Suleimani was assassinated by a US drone air strike at the Baghdad International Airport (BIAP).

Even the great Tucker Carlson—the only mainstream hope for us Old Right, America First, anti-war sorts—framed the taking out of Suleimani as the killing of a bad guy by good guys:

“There are an awful lot of bad people in this world. We can’t kill them all, it’s not our job.”

However you finesse it, the premise of Tucker’s statement is that the American government, and the cognoscenti who live in symbiosis with it, get to adjudicate who’s bad and who’s good in the world. The debate is never over right or wrong, but over whether our universal American Judges should or shouldn’t act on their immutably just moral calls.

Even Tucker, whose antiwar sentiments are laudable, conceded that this Suleimani guy probably needed killing, which is the same thing Iraqis old enough to remember America’s destruction of Iraq, circa 2003, would say about President George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld.

So who’s right? Or must we accept that it is up to the United States government and its ruling elites to determine who lives and who dies around the world.

The atavistic argument—“Suleimani deserved to die”—made on Fox News holds true only if you believe that the US is the repository of an international and universal code of law and is deputized to uphold this code of law.

This primitive argument is true ONLY if you believe the US government is universal judge, jury and executioner, deciding who may live and who must die the world over.

As to whether the US government has a right to eliminate a state actor by declaring him a “terrorist”:

Like it or not, Suleimani was an Iranian state actor, the equivalent of our Special Operations Commander.

We would not tolerate Iranians designating America’s Special Operations Commander, Gen. Richard D. Clarke, as a terrorist, although they may have plenty reasons to do so.

Our Special Operations forces and their command encroach on the Iranian neighborhood much more so than Iranians and their special forces encroach on American territory.

If Iranians took out America’s Special Operations Commander somewhere in North America—we would definitely consider it an act of war by Iran.

* Image courtesy BBC News.

Neoconservative Mark Levin Disses Tucker For Rejecting WAR WITH IRAN

Foreign Policy, Iran, Neoconservatism, Republicans, War

Tucker Carlson is is highly critical of John Bolton and for excellent reasons. Bolton has speared-headed or agitated for unconstitutional, unjust wars and other revolutionary interventions to force democracy abroad through war.

And Tucker Carlson is standing firm again war with an impoverished, economically broken Iran. Neoconservative have always wanted to go to war against Iran. The see their chance.

And neoconservatives like Mark Levin see blood in the water.  They are rushing to create group consensus within the War Party. That means marginalizing thinking dissidents like Tucker.

At 31 minutes and 19 seconds, Levin launches his not-so veiled attack against “Americans who should know better.” Clearly it’s not the Left Levin is gunning for; it’s the anti-war Right:

And, Levin misquotes and distorts the likes of Tucker when alleges this was said: “Can you point to one example when Iran committed a terrorist act?”

Tucker has merely asked when last did Iran commit terrorism against the US? He’s on the money. See this blog post of mine: “Iranians Killed ZERO Americans In Terrorist Attacks In U.S. Between 1975 -2015.”

Looks like Tucker Carlson is more likely to have Trump’s ear on Iran than Bolton, or … Levin. Is someone jealous?

If You Support Nation-State Sovereignty, You Must Reject US Extradition Overreach

Canada, China, Foreign Policy, Iran, Law, Nationhood, The State

Poor Julian Assange’s kidnapping from the Ecuadorian consulate in England, earlier this month, at the behest of American prosecutors, has faded from Fake News’s fleeting collective memory.

Assange is next due to appear before court via video link on May 2, in relation to a US extradition request over allegations he conspired with former military analyst Chelsea Manning to download and disseminate classified material.
That appearance will be a short mention, with US prosecutors expected to issue a more detailed argument for extradition in June that could include further charges.

Likewise, the US has instructed Canada, supposedly a sovereign nation, to extradite Meng Wanzhou, “a senior executive of Huawei, a telecommunications giant, and the daughter of its founder. The action was taken at the request of American prosecutors, who accuse Ms Meng of scheming to sidestep sanctions against Iran.”  (The Economist,

Am I the only one bothered by American global overreach? Left or Right, does anyone really think it’s OK for the US to tell China who to trade with? Do we really believe that the US, because supposedly good, should be able to bend the laws of sovereign nation-states to its will?

If you support such illiberal use of American power in overriding national sovereignty around the world—you can hardly claim the mantle of a populist, concerned for the survival and sovereignty of nations states.