{"id":200386,"date":"2020-01-06T08:30:51","date_gmt":"2020-01-06T08:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=200386"},"modified":"2020-01-08T07:20:16","modified_gmt":"2020-01-08T07:20:16","slug":"disastrous-soleimani-decision-will-likely-hit-us-politically-economically-and-in-blood","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=200386","title":{"rendered":"Disastrous Soleimani Decision will Likely Hit US Politically, Economically and in Blood"},"content":{"rendered":"

Charles Shoebridge \u2013 American Herald Tribune Jan 3, 2020<\/strong><\/h1>\n

In a massive escalation of tensions, the US has killed<\/a><\/strong><\/span> Iran\u2019s most senior general Qasem Soleimani<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, a man revered<\/a><\/strong><\/span> not only throughout Iran but also in much of the Middle East and elsewhere, not least due to his victories over Islamic State (IS) in Syria and Iraq.<\/span><\/p>\n

The US claims the killing was a pre-emptive strike aimed at preventing attacks on Americans, but has yet to produce specific evidence<\/a><\/strong><\/span> to support this claim. President Donald Trump meanwhile announced the attack by simply tweeting an image of the US flag<\/a><\/strong><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Reaction from much of the world in condemning<\/a> the attack as an unnecessary and unlawful escalation has been swift, with even traditional US allies such as in Europe notably not offering their support for what is in effect an act of war that almost certainly will produce further escalation, bloodshed and instability in the Middle East and beyond.<\/span><\/p>\n

Many are understandably asking what strategy lies behind Trump\u2019s move, and what the US could possibly gain from carrying out an attack the negative consequences of which were entirely foreseeable. The answer is that, at least as far as can be discerned, there is no strategy.<\/span><\/p>\n

US foreign policy, forever pulled in different and often contradictory directions by numerous lobbies and special interest groups such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and US arms companies, has rarely been entirely coherent or consistent – and arguably indeed usually serves such special interest groups rather than the American people themselves.<\/span><\/p>\n

Under Trump however, what passes for US strategy appears to be a president often acting impulsively either on his own initiative or on the advice of a small group of seemingly neocon officials and advisors who seek to exploit opportunities for conflict whenever they arise. Thus for example in July Trump ordered an attack on Iran in response to the downing of a US drone, only then to realize the likely catastrophic consequences and cancel<\/a> the attack plan.<\/span><\/p>\n

At the time, the former head of the UK\u2019s Royal Navy, Admiral Lord West, described how \u2018powerful groups in Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US want war and think a strike on Iran will lead to regime change.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

Those such as John Bolton<\/strong><\/span><\/a> who promote<\/a> <\/strong><\/span>such a war likely don\u2019t envisage a protracted conflict of the type that the US would almost certainly lose. They imagine instead that a short sharp conflict for example based on air strikes would topple the Iran government at low cost to the US in terms of money and lives. In this they are almost certainly wrong. As West pointed out<\/a>, such an attack would likely lead to \u2018open ended war with catastrophic consequences across the world\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Admiral Lord West, former head of UK navy:
\u2018Powerful groups in Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US want war and think a strike on Iran would lead to regime change. They are wrong. It would lead to open ended war with catastrophic consequences across the globe\u2018https:\/\/t.co\/ujhf1qsvw9<\/a><\/p>\n

— Charles Shoebridge (@ShoebridgeC) July 21, 2019<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n