Watching BBC News

It's all about the pandemic.

Months ago, Putin said that time of pandemic called for a relaxation of tensions, global cooperation, and specifically for dropping or lessening of trade barriers, tariffs, and sanctions.

He was right.

Trump refused to step up.

A little weird, but yes, that happened.

But Putin was speaking primary of sanctions on Iran.

And the Duce is an even more rabid Zionist than Bibi.

Well, perhaps I exaggerate.

Assassination as reprisal

It was not a preemptive killing at all.

Trump authorized Soleimani's killing 7 months ago, with conditions

President Donald Trump authorized the killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani seven months ago if Iran's increased aggression resulted in the death of an American, according to five current and former senior administration officials.

The presidential directive in June came with the condition that Trump would have final signoff on any specific operation to kill Soleimani, officials said.

That decision explains why assassinating Soleimani was on the menu of options that the military presented to Trump two weeks ago for responding to an attack by Iranian proxies in Iraq, in which a U.S. contractor was killed and four U.S. service members were wounded, the officials said.

And what if Iran really isn't done with its revenge?

Iranians fess up

Iran admits to unintentionally shooting down Ukrainian plane

Iran has admitted it unintentionally shot down a Ukrainian passenger plane hours after the country had launched ballistic missiles at Iraqi bases hosting U.S. troops. 

Officials blamed "human error" for taking down the jet and killing all 176 people aboard.

"Armed Forces’ internal investigation has concluded that regrettably missiles fired due to human error caused the horrific crash of the Ukrainian plane & death of 176 innocent people. Investigations continue to identify & prosecute this great tragedy & unforgivable mistake," Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Twitter.

Based on a preliminary conclusion by the armed forces, "human error at time of crisis caused by US adventurism led to disaster," Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif tweeted, seemingly attempting to lay some blame for the incident on the U.S.

John Kerry on the Trump-Pompeo "outright lie"

At You Tube.

Iran sued to recover those frozen assets and won.

Oh, and NATO-ME?

Bozo is a complete idiot and Pompeo is a contemptible lying thug.

First this, then impeachment

House votes to limit Trump's military action against Iran without congressional approval

The House of Representatives on Thursday voted to approve a resolution aimed at restraining the President's ability to use military action against Iran without congressional approval, amid simmering tensions between the US and the country.

The vote was 224-194. Republican Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Francis Rooney of Florida crossed party lines to vote in favor while Democratic Reps. 

Max Rose of New York, Ben McAdams of Utah, Anthony Brindisi of New York, Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, Elaine Luria of Virginia, Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Kendra Horn of Oklahoma and Stephanie Murphy of Florida voted against the resolution.

Now that the resolution has passed the House it will next go to the Senate.

MSNBC's McCaffrey claimed this morning that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and so is this.

Things to bear in mind include that Trump did not start a war and did not intend to start a war.

And killing Suleimani was not an intelligence activity.

Several states have satellite data establishing the Iranians did it

Video appears to show missile strike as Canada and UK say they have intel Iran shot down Ukrainian plane

Meanwhile Iran is rearranging and even removing crash pieces on the ground, some of which have been identified in photos as Russian SAM wreckage.

Iran is lying and the Russians are backing them up.

Would it matter if the Bidens really did have something corrupt going on in Ukraine?

That Suleimani was indeed a bad guy whose job was to plan terrorist attacks and devastation of civilian targets, among other, and that he doubtless did have enterprises at various phases of the planning stage do not add up to legal justification (no imminent threat) for acting without prior consultation with at least the Gang of Eight, not do they make this a lawful targeted killing rather than an illegal assassination.

Nor, of course, do those facts prevent this attack from being a wildly reckless and evil gamble (consider how may people would have died, lots of them Americans but mostly others and a lot of them noncombatants, had this gone as wrong as it might have), a wag the dog blow against impeachment, a campaign stunt and a thumb in the eye of Obama and the Democrats

So, if there really was dirt to be found on the Bidens, would that convert his impeachable subordination of foreign policy to the need of his reelection campaign to "dirty up" Joe Biden to a perfectly lawful hunt for proof of corruption?

No.

The crime boss in the White House is as far from being an Eliot Ness crime fighter as Al Capone, and is just as disturbed at the thought of corruption among government officials.

That is, not at all.

Unless pursuing it can serve his own interests, likely criminal themselves, in some way.

Was it shot down?

And they're covering it up?

Ukrainian Boeing plane crash in Iran, investigators hunt for clues

Ukraine is investigating multiple possible causes of Wednesday's deadly jetliner crash that killed 176 passengers and crew shortly after takeoff in Tehran. 

Ukraine’s National Security and Defence council chief, Oleksiy Danilov, wrote on Facebook that a meeting is taking place Thursday with Iranian authorities, where various causes behind the crash are "being studied."

These include the theory that the plane was hit by an anti-aircraft missile, Danilov wrote.

It's still not clear what caused the crash and several explanations, including technical failure, have not been ruled out.

Other theories under consideration are whether the plane collided with a drone or “other flying object”; technical problems with the plane’s engine causing it to explode, or finally whether an explosion inside the plane was a terrorist act.

Maybe it's really just about getting a better Iran deal than O got

Judging from what Trump's complaint has always been and his deathless need to out-do Obama, that's his real objective.

And he's closer to that goal than ever if he doesn't take another step up the escalator.

Great bragging rights behind which to obscure the whole impeachment thing.

Update during and after Bozo's speech.

Confirmation.

The Duce is puffed up enormously, even accusing the O administration of giving the Iranian regime billions and paying for the attacks carried out by their proxies - an accusation I first heard put out there with great vigor by Pompeo a few days ago and a distortion of reality so great as to be a vicious and contemptible lie.

That was actually Iranian money in the US that had been frozen before the deal and was released to them at its conclusion.

He insists Europe abandon the remnants of the Obama deal and join with Trump in working out a better deal that prevents Iran going nuclear while imposing greater restraint.

He's going to invite NATO to help work on that new agreement.

He's announced heavier sanctions on Iran.

As usual, he's taking credit for modifications and upgrades to the military that were begun under O, and for the economy that has, indeed, continued to improve during his presidency.

And he took credit for 40 years of market change that has made the US pretty much energy independent of any need for foreign oil or gas.

He invited Iran to continue to cooperate with the US in fighting ISIS.

And he offered peace and a welcome to the international community to the people of Iran.

No questions.

Chris Matthews, looking at what Pompeo, Pence, and the other hawks around Bozo are known to want, and (rather weirdly) the repeated use of the word "regime", thinks Trump's moves are really aimed at regime change.

To me it looks more like he's been telling the truth all along, he does not want war, and really does just want a better deal than O got.

If the regime collapsed under pressure he would take credit, of course.

But I think it's clear he's not really with the crazy hawks.

He's using them to wreck the O deal because only they wanted to wreck the O deal.

There wasn't anybody else to use.

But the hawks are still screaming

Lindsey Graham threatens to take Iran ‘ut of the oil business’ in wake of missile strike

While President Trump issued an uncharacteristically measured response Tuesday night to Iran’s launch of more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases housing American troops, his vocal ally and golfing buddy Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) took a different approach: threatening Iran with the destruction of its oil industry.

“Your fate is in your own hands in terms of the regime’s economic viability,” Graham said on Fox News, addressing Iran. “You continue this crap, you’re going to wake up one day out of the oil business.”

Sean Hannity Calls For ‘Full Force’ Of U.S. Military To Strike Iran

“There is a massive price to pay. You don’t get to do what they did tonight. They have now been begging ― the president wanted to talk and wants peace ― and they are going to get hit hard. Their hostility will now be met with the full force of the greatest, most advanced, most sophisticated military this world has ever seen.”

Hannity suggested the U.S. should bomb Iranian oil refineries.

And who says there's enough unity in the Iranian government for it as a whole to adhere to the idea this was the whole of their response?

Hardliners cannot be happy with this.

EU leaders plead with Trump not to respond to Iranian attacks

European leaders have pleaded in public and in private with the Trump administration to draw a line in its conflict with Iran, and not to respond militarily to the Iranian missile attack on US forces in Iraq.

Donald Trump’s decision to cancel a planned statement to the American people late on Tuesday night was seen as a sign that the White House was willing to consult allies before taking any further action.

But European diplomats said they still feared that the weight of opinion in Washington was finely balanced, with hawks insisting that the US must respond militarily to the first official state sponsored attack on the US by Iran since the Iranian revolution in 1979.

There is, however, relief that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in his remarks on Wednesday morning did not speak of further military action and that the bulk of the Iranian military spokesman only threatened further action if the US itself fired back.

Pompeo, too?

Pompeo orders diplomats not to meet with Iranian opposition groups amid tensions

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo sent a cable to all US missions overseas ordering diplomats not to meet with Iranian opposition groups without specific approval because it could further exacerbate tensions with the Iranian regime.

"Many exiled Iranian opposition groups try to engage U.S. officials regularly to gain at least the appearance of tacit support and enhance their visibility and clout," Pompeo said, according to a copy of the cable obtained by CNN. 

He noted that many of these groups "have previously or are currently using violent means in support of their political aims."

"Direct U.S. government engagement with these groups could prove counterproductive to our policy goal of seeking a comprehensive deal with the Iranian regime that addresses its destabilizing behavior," Pompeo wrote.

Some of the slower folks catching up

Iran leaves Trump an off-ramp, but will he take it?

There was little doubt when President Donald Trump ordered a fatal strike last week on Qassem Soleimani that Iran would feel compelled to retaliate. 

The question was how hard — and what would Trump do next?

By limiting its initial response to airstrikes on an Iraqi base used by U.S. forces, Iran appears to have sought to leave Trump an off-ramp: score settled, no need to escalate.

There were multiple signs that Iran had tailored its action to be arguably commensurate to Trump’s. 

. . . .

Several hours after the first wave of missile strikes, there were no reports of U.S. casualties. 

In its place, there was a growing sense that Iran had deliberately missed hitting sites head-on that would likely inflict serious U.S. casualties so as to make its point without overly inflaming the situation.

Indeed, in Iran’s first English-language comment on the strikes on Ain al-Asad air base, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said his nation did “not seek escalation or war,” but merely to “defend ourselves against any aggression.”

“Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense,” Zarif, Iran’s chief interlocutor with the West, wrote on Twitter.

. . . .

For Trump, it [not retaliating again] could also allow him to argue that Democrats’ frantic reactions to his strike on Soleimani, with lawmakers warning he might have dragged the U.S. into a new war, were misguided and ultimately incorrect. 

That could embolden Trump as he seeks re-election to assert that his foreign policy decision-making had been vindicated when it mattered most.

But it was deeply uncertain whether Trump’s pugnacious disposition and previous vows to punch back if Iran retaliated would allow him to look the other way as opposed to volleying back even harder.

Some administration officials believe Iran intentionally missed areas with Americans

There is a growing belief among some Trump administration officials that Iran's missiles intentionally missed areas populated by Americans when they targeted two Iraqi bases housing US troops early Wednesday local time, multiple administration officials said.

These officials floated the notion that Iran could have directed their missiles to hit areas that are populated by Americans, but intentionally did not.

And they suggested Iran may have chosen to send a message rather than take significant enough action to provoke a substantial US military response, a possible signal the administration was looking for rationale to calm the tensions.

Iranian missiles also landed close to the US consulate in Erbil, but didn't target the consulate itself, though the belief is that they could have.

Iran's measured response

Put it this way.

They did not assassinate Mike Pompeo.

They did not unleash their proxies all over the region.

They are not opting for war and the response is about as little as possible without being risible.

Odd that more people don't see it.

According to Iran, those missiles were the whole of it. Done. They drew a line under it. Over to Trump to decide where it goes next.

Can Trump resist taking the next step on the escalator to war?

Or even just keep it diminuendo so the series of strikes and counter-strikes can peter out?

Pretty safe bet the hawks who have his ear are not urging that.

Iran retaliates for attack on general by firing missiles at U.S. forces in Iraq

Iran retaliated for the killing of a top general by firing more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two Iraqi air bases housing U.S. forces on Wednesday local time.

Defense Department said there was no question about the source of the missiles, and the Iranian government quickly claimed responsibility.

"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," the Pentagon said in a statement.

It was unclear whether there was any damage to Ain al-Asad air base, which President Donald Trump visited in 2018, or whether there were any deaths or injuries.

The president said in a tweet that "all is well!" and that damages and casualties were being assessed.

As Congress reacts to Iran attack on U.S. forces, Pelosi says 'world cannot afford war'

Members of Congress said Tuesday night that they were praying for U.S. military forces overseas and that they were monitoring developments following news that Iran launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles at U.S. forces in Iraq.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., tweeted that the United States and the world "cannot afford war."

"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," she said.

It's looking like some of the Shiite cat's paws in the region may not be willing to accept Iran's choice to respond entirely on its own and in so limited a way.

Hezbollah in Lebanon and some militias in Iraq are grousing and in the latter case openly signally they will take action of their own at least on the same scale as Iran's.

Will Trump resist the temptation to blame all such responses on Iran and leap onto that escalator?

How many dead to wag the dog?

Conspicuously not elected officials

Republicans who don't mute their criticisms of Trump and his idiotic moves on Iran

A National Review piece.

Scarborough in WAPO.

This one may be an overreaction.

Why take a chance trying to contain nuclear ambitions of even more America-hating, terrorist-loving states?

How's that containment stuff working out in the Axis of Nuts?

A somewhat different view at NR.

It's more and more obvious

Pompeo is a smug shithead gushing utter tripe.

Pompeo calls ayatollah 'the real risk' to Iran's culture

Is Tucker Carlson the new Shep Smith?

No, he seems much angrier than Shep ever did.

And he's still peddling Trumpist bullshit about everything to do with Russiagate.

But this rant is definitely worth watching.

"So we trust the Deep State now?"

Well, Americans do like violence

Here’s What Americans Think About Trump’s Iran Policy

Trump personally wags the dog

Tweet,

Congress & the President should not be wasting their time and energy on a continuation of the totally partisan Impeachment Hoax when we have so many important matters pending. 

196 to ZERO was the Republican House vote, & we got 3 Dems. 

This was not what the Founders had in mind!

Iraq to give us the boot

Trump doubles down on threat to Iranian cultural sites, demands Iraq pay for U.S. base

The crime boss speaks.

Speaking aboard Air Force One on his return to Washington Sunday from a holiday at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Trump said: 

"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."

Meaning "I'm not going to obey the law. War crimes? Who gives a shit?"

And it never occurs to him to find out whether there might be binding legal obligations limiting his actions.

Who will make him obey?

Trump on Sunday night also sounded a note of defiance over the news that Iraq's Parliament voted to expel U.S. troops from the country. He said military personnel would not leave unless Iraq pays the U.S. back for an airbase there.

"We have a very extraordinarily expensive airbase that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time," Trump said. "We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it."

Or that some actions might require legislative backing.

The president went on to say that if Iraq forces the U.S. military out of Iraq, "we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame."

"If there’s any hostility, that they do anything we think is inappropriate, we are going to put sanctions on Iraq, very big sanctions on Iraq," Trump said.

He's too stupid to see that all his bullying could easily backfire.

Iraq's prime minister has scheduled a meeting Monday with the American ambassador to discuss the U.S. role in Iraq, according to two officials familiar with the planning.

The officials say Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi is expected to tell Ambassador Matthew Tueller that U.S. troops will have to leave the country, and he is expected to ask for a timeline.