So how alarming WAS the Iran-attack-plotting intelligence?

The trouble with taking preemptive action to try and stop an imminent attack is that it can then lead to a retaliatory strike which defeats the whole point. That's exactly what has happened in the current US/Iran confrontation. The US claimed to have such alarming intelligence of an imminent Iranian plot to attack American forces in the Middle East that President Trump authorised the assassination of the man doing the plotting, Major-General Qasem Soleimani, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force. Kill Soleimani and eliminate the imminent threat. Four days later Iran launches more than a dozen medium-range ballistic missiles at two bases in Iraq occupied by American troops. So the assassination did not stop an attack, it provoked one. Interestingly Trump must have been warned that it looked like Iran was about to launch a missile attack - satellite imagery? - but there were no moves to take preemptive action on this occasion and hit the missile bases before they could be launched. You wonder why not. What was "intelligence" saying in the lead-up to the missile launches at 2am local Iranian time? And, most important, how spectacular was the intelligence that led to Trump's decision to hit Soleimani as soon as he had arrived at Baghdad airport last Friday? Was it really warning of a specific imminent attack? If so, Soleimani was taking a helluva risk turning up in Baghdad just when an attack inspired by him was about to take place. How specific was the intelligence? When asked about the status of the intelligence, General Mark Milley, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave no details when asked by reporters but rather coyly implied that if they had seen what he and Mark Esper, his political boss at the Pentagon, had seen they would understand what it was all about. Ha! I've heard that one before over the years. "If only you could see the intelligence stuff I have to see every day, you would be astonished," one British defence secretary once told me in confidence. The fact is that however alarming the intelligence was, it cannot be acceptable under international law for a nation's president to kill another country's senior military commander however much blood he has on his hands. Many many many people, some of them presidents and prime ministers, have blood on their hands. So this justification is not really justifiable. However, if any case can be made under law for killing Soleimani then it must be a decision made within the context of a strategic plan and with the clearest expectation of the likely consequences. Where did the strategic thinking come from on this occasion, was it from the Pentagon, the State Department or the White House? Did Esper and Milley say to Trump: "Well there is always the option to target this monster Soleimani but we would seriously advise against it and you would need to seek the advice of the attorney general." But if that is what they thought, why did the Pentagon include the kill-Soleimani option at all? Mike Pompeo, secretary of state, is reported to have been a strong advocate for this option but then he has always hated Iran, just like his former cabinet colleague John Bolton. So hitting Soleimani had probably been on his agenda ever since he took over at the State Department. Bolton has made it clear he thoroughly approved. So we're back to the big questions: how serious and authentic was the intelligence (we may never know), did the preemptive attack actually eliminate the threat (NO), and what does Trump really want to do in the Middle East? Keep US troops in Iraq for ever? After the ballistic-missile attack on the two bases, his instinct will be to say no no no, get them out of there. So perhaps Brigadier-General William Seely's letter to the Iraqi government will come back into play after all!!

Dear Iraqi Government we're leaving, regards Brigadier General William Seely

The name Brigadier General William Seely will for ever be associated with confusion and bewilderment.The current comnmander of US forces in Iraq had his name attached to a letter to the Iraqi Government which basically said or implied that American troops were about to leave the country for good and sorry about the nighttime noise of helicopters getting them the hell out. The letter, strangely unsigned, made a point of how important it was for the US to honour the wishes of the Iraqi parliament which had voted for all US forces to withdraw from Iraq. Just totally weird! It contradicted everything the Pentagon and White House had said. So how on earth did General Seely wake up that morning AFTER the assassination of the Quds Force leader Major-General Qasem Soleimani outside Baghdad airport and decide to tell the Iraqis America was giving up and moving out. Without anyone knowing what he was doing back in Washington? Obviously General Seely, a Marine, didn't actually write the letter. He would have got his military assistant to do it, but he would have given the gist of what he wanted to say. Anyway the letter was circulated all over the place and of course a copy was passed to the media and out it all came last night. I've never so much damage limitation erupt from within the Pentagon. Mark Esper, Defence Secretary, and General Mark Milley, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, rushed to do a media "gaggle" to pour cold water on the letter. Esper claimed he didn't even know about the letter although later he said he had read it. But he said no decision had been made about US troops leaving Iraq. "Period". He and General Milley then explained there was a lot of moving around of troops right now but that was all about ensuring troops were in better protective positions in case there was an almighty Iranian revenge attack for the death by Hellfire-armed drone of General Soleimani. So troops WERE being helicoptered out of Baghdad's Green Zone. Fair enough. But how the hell did that redeployment translate in the Seely letter into a pledge to withdraw from Iraq altogether. General Milley summed it up by saying it was all a mistake. I should say! The mistake could not have come at a worse time, just when Trump was feeling good about removing General Soleimani from the planet. We don't know what Trump must have said to Esper and/or Milley but it can't have been pleasant. In his press gaggle Esper sounded like someone who hadn't a clue what was going on which is not very reassuring from the defence secretary of the most powerful nation on Earth. Milley didn't sound much better. I reckon the skids will be under both of these men. As for General Seely, bye bye Seely, your presence is no longer required. Period.

Iran threatens revenge but does it want to confront the world's military superpower?

Donald Trump is in a superpower mood. He is a president with an unlimited amount of firepower at his beck and call and he has as good as threatened to use it if Tehran so much as dares retaliate for the killing of Major-General Qassem Soleimani. This will not have escaped the ayatollahs in Tehran who are clearly wrestling with the options for striking back at the US. Whatever Iran does, the US can do better and bigger. The long-suffering people of Iran, already angry and desperate over the deteriorating economy, thanks to US sanctions, will hardly welcome war with the United States. Their leaders have chosen a path which has ruined their lives and livelihoods. A huge proportion of the country's funds have been spent on waging proxy wars throughout the Middle East. For them General Soleimani was no hero. He was the man who helped turn Iran into a pariah state. Yes his passing is being mourned by hundreds of thousands and there are cries of death to America, like the bad old days when Iran's autocracy under the Shah was overthrown by the wild revolutionary mullahs. But since then the world has changed dramatically, and Iran has stuttered and stumbled and stamped its foot and attempted to build a powerbase that would dominate the Middle East. But in the end all the ayatollahs and their mischief-making Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force achieved was ruin for their country and a mass spread of violence throughout the region. So do the ayatollahs really want to take on the United States under Donald Trump? Trump WILL hit back again and again until they get the message. That will mean more misery for the Iranian people, more demolition of the Iranian economy and, inevitably, more deaths. It's a grim prospect for Iran, for the Middle East, and for the world. Of course Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, might be tempted to push hard to develop nuclear weapons, believing that that and only that would keep the Americans at bay. But the US will be aware of this option and you can bet that the first sign of Iran attempting to "break out" for a fast move towards a nuclear weapon will bring devastating consequences. Trump will not hesitate and will order bombers to target the nuclear sites. So this is a dangerous moment for Iran. One false move and Trump will pounce. There is no question about that. But can Iran lose face by doing nothing in revenge for the death of Soleimani? Will the ayatollahs surprise us all by opting for peace and diplomacy? I very much fear not.

Qassem Soleimani, the man who never hid from view

Full version of my story in today's Times: Major-General Qassem Soleimani was America's easiest target. Iran's most powerful military leader never hid from view, he always flaunted his presence across the Middle East. It took the CIA ten years to track down Osama bin Laden and five years to pinpoint the whereabouts of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader and founder of Isis. However, the CIA which has a significant "station" in Baghdad, had little difficulty monitoring the movements and plottings of the leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force. General Soleimani was Iran's very public face abroad, especially in Iraq. His trimly white-flecked bearded face was often photographed, sometimes peering upwards as if daring his enemies to target him. The CIA knew so much about him that the intelligence agency would have had the details of his flight plan from Tehran to Baghdad, who was waiting to meet him at the international airport and what vehicles would be used to drive him downtown. Bin Laden and al-Baghdadi eluded the CIA and the signals intelligence satellites of the National Security Agency even though their faces were as well known as General Soleimani's. But the difference was that they knew they were marked men, to be killed if they ever revealed their whereabouts. General Soleimani would have known he too was a marked man and that the US and Israel had him in their sights. But he was the Iranian supreme leader's most trusted aide. Targeting him always had much greater potential consequences. Killing the Iranian general and mastermind of Tehran's proxy wars in Iraq and Yemen and elsewhere in thee Middle Eastmust have been authorised by President Trump at the same time as his decision to bomb five targets in Iraq and Syria linked to the Iranian-backed militia Kata'ib Hezbollah. It was why the Pentagon rushed 100 Marines to reinforce the US embassy compound in Baghdad, deployed 750 paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division to Kuwait and put on standby another 4000 troops for the region. The US Air Force Reaper squadron at al-Udeid airbase in Qatar was put on alert for the assassination decision. Two Reapers flew to the target from Qatar, one as back-up. However, the release of the precision-guided missile that destroyed the two vehicles as they left Baghdad international airport was carried out by an operator sitting at his console in the US Air Force base at Creech in Nevada.

The killing of Qassem Soleimani - Trump strikes back

The assassination of Major-General Qassem Soleimani, possibly Donald Trump's most skilled and deadly enemy,is a huge huge deal. It's huge for the Middle East, huge for Trump and his relection hopes and huge for the ayatollahs who have to decide whether to go on a war footing or go quiet. Trump will expect his Big Decision will sweep him back into the White House. Judging by the Republican support he has got today it will certainly get him the impeachment acquittal he is counting on in the Senate later this month. As for the Iranian regime, the killing of Soleimani, right-hand man to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,the Supreme Leader, is inevitably going to lead to some form of revenge attack. Like Mafia gang bosses, the tit-for-tat killings will then continue until it turns to real war or a very tense stand-off. That is the calculation Tehran has to make although the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps will be shouting in the ayatollahs' ears that revenge is compulsory or lose face. So it's likely we are in for some bloody action in the Middle East. The US has 5,000 troops in Iraq with 750 more about to arrive and 4,000 ready to move. But we're not talking about a ground war. The troops are just a deterrent. If there is to be further bloodshed on both sides we're talking about rockets and suicide bombs on the one hand and airstrikes on the other. The US will win but at what cost. Trump is desperate to leave the Middle East but, as his predecessors discovered, the US HAS to be in the region. The vacuum left by an absence of American firepower would be seen as a victory for Tehran which would capitalise on what would be perceived as Washington weakness. So Trump is stuck with the reality of Middle East politics. The assassination of Soleimani by two Hellfire missiles will mean that the US and Iran will still be at dangerous loggerheads, if not at war, by the time of the November election date. Good luck to the Democratic challengers. Anything they say to condemn Trump's action will be seen as weakness. They will lose votes in a country that likes to be viewed by the rest of the world as super-tough. Trump, enjoying holiday time at his resort in Florida, will be feeling good right now. His tweet depicting the American flag after the killing of Soleimani should be a warning not just to the ayatollahs but also to other potential enemies. Trump has got the taste for it and will be itching to do it again if provoked.

America not yet ready for President Castro. What a shame!

To be honest Julian Castro, likeable and brilliant politician though he is, never stood much chance of winnng the Democratic presidential nomination against his big-gun rivals, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg. But it's a day to be mourned that the United States will not have its very own President Castro. The other Castro, Fidel, would have turned in his grave which is no bad thing. Young Julian was the only Latino to be running for the top job and his decision to end his campaign, announced today, means the diversity spread has now been cut back. Castro, who served as housing and urban development secretary under Barack Obama, could still have a role to play in the 2020 election. He was once touted as a possible vice-presidential running mate to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and I guess could be picked by one of the surviving candidates when the nomination day gets closer. Vice President Castro would still sound pretty good! His decision to stop his campaign was wise. He had never attracted huge popular support or sufficient financial backing. But he always sounded pretty articulate and leaning towards the liberal side. But when you have Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren espousing the liberal causes he was always going to be an also ran. Now his supporters and financial backers have to decide who to turn to? Do they switch to Sanders or Warren or opt for a young same-generation candidate as Castro, such as Andrew Yang, 44, or Pete Buttigieg, 37, the now former mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Buttigieg is still raking in the donations and, despite his youth, he could well surge forward as the most popular candidate, taking Castro's supporters with him. Perhaps a Buttigieg/Castro ticket for 2020? That would be pretty dynamic and would make Donald Trump, 73, and Mike Pence, 60, look like two old-age pensioners. Would Trump fear a Buttigieg/Castro challenge more than, say, a Joe Biden/?? ticket? Biden cunningly has not rejected the idea of asking a Republican to be his running mate although he claims he can't think of anyone at this stage. But if he does it will have to be someone young and thrusting and popular, and maybe Latino to bring in the votes. Someone like Marco Rubio perhaps. He's 48, senator for Miami and highly ambitious. There you are Joe Biden. Marco Rubio as your running mate, if he would agree, would stir up your campaign nicely.

How the hell was the US embassy compound in Baghdad breached?

The attack on the US embassy compound in Baghdad is a dangerous warning sign of hostilities to come. American embassies are, in the mind of angry anti-US protestors, a symbol of the Great Satan. They are more vulnerable to attack in foreign parts than any other foreign embassy. The brutal attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 2012, ended with the death of the ambassador Christoher Stevens and three other American officials. A truly shocking event which should have served as a forever reminder that in potentially hostile environments, the US embassy has to be protected with a formidable presence of Marines to be a deterrent to anyone attempting to breach the perimeter walls. And yet that is exactly what happened in Baghdad. Hordes of angry Shia militia supporters managed to break down a door and gain access to the reception area. Only now after the violence of yesterday has the Pentagon sent another 100 Marines to guard the embassy. Surely when the airstrikes were approved to target five Kataib Hezbollah bases in Iraq and Syria, Pentagon and State Department officials must have considered beefing up the embassy Marine presence prior to the air raids by F-15E Strike Eagles. But apparently not. The extra 100 Marines had to be rushed in as an afterthought. It seems extraordinary to me that no one predicted there would be a violent reaction to Sunday's airstrikes which killed 25 Shia militia fighters. How bad did it look for America's prestige around the world for Shia militia supporters to break into the US embassy compound, supposedly designed to keep hostiles out? Within hours, Mark Esper, the US defence secretary, was forced to send not only 100 more Marines to the embassy but ordered 750 troops to leave immediately for the region, and warned off another 4,000 to be prepared to move. All too late. All deployments looking like the Pentagon panicking to fill in the gaps when it should have been pre-planned before the airstrikes were launched on Sunday. As has happened in the past, Iran is calling the tune and Trump is being forced to send yet more troops to the Middle East when what he really wanted to do was bring them all home. Sorry, Mr President, but you're never going to be able to do that because Iran will always be plotting the next outrage. Iran's proxy militia in Iraq will be under new orders to step up attacks on the US presence in the region. It's inevitable. That wily General Qasem Soleimani, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force in charge of stirring up trouble for the Americans throughout the Middle East, is a master strategist and determined enemy of the US. He will see the breach of the US embassy in Baghdad as a great victory. Those US airstrikes on Sunday have opened up a can of dangerous worms.