NOTE:This article was copied from the e-newspaper, therefore no link to article.
"Iranian rage over downing airliner intensifies" by Jon Gambrell, San Diego Union-Tribune 1/14/2020
Security forces appear to fire on protesters with live ammunition
Popular anger swelled Monday in Iran over the accidental shoot down of a Ukrainian jetliner and the government’s attempt to conceal its role in the tragedy, as online videos appeared to show security forces firing live ammunition and tear gas to disperse protests in the streets.
Iranians, already suffering under crippling U.S. sanctions, expressed shock and outrage over the plane crash that killed scores of young people. They also decried the misleading statements from top officials, who only admitted responsibility three days later in the face of mounting evidence.
The country began last week engulfed in mourning after a U.S. drone strike killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who led Iran’s regional military interventions. Then on Jan. 8, it responded with a ballistic missile attack on two bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq, although there were no casualties.
U.S. commanders at the base said Monday they believe the attack was intended to kill American personnel, an act that could have pushed the two powers to outright war.
Hours after that barrage, as it braced for a U.S. counterattack that never came, Iranian forces accidentally shot down the Ukraine International Airlines jetliner, killing all 176 people aboard shortly after it took off from Tehran for Kyiv.
For a growing number of critics — from ordinary citizens to notable athletes and artists — the events have revealed a government that is incapable of following through on its incendiary rhetoric and willing to mislead its own people about a national tragedy in order to avoid embarrassment.
Those sentiments first boiled over late Saturday, shortly after the Revolutionary Guard admitted shooting the plane down by mistake. A candlelight vigil at a university rapidly turned into an anti-government demonstration.
“They are lying that our enemy is America! Our enemy is right here!” students shouted.
On Sunday night, protesters massed in Tehran’s Azadi, or Freedom, Square.
Videos sent to the New York-based Center for Human Rights in Iran and later verified by The Associated Press show a crowd of demonstrators near Azadi Square fleeing as a tear gas canister lands among them. People cough and sputter while trying to escape the fumes, with one woman calling out in Farsi: “They fired tear gas at people! Azadi Square! Death to the dictator!”
Another video shows a woman being carried away in the aftermath of the violence, a trail of blood visible on the ground. Those around her cry out that she has been shot in the leg.
“Oh my God, she’s bleeding nonstop!” one person shouts. Another shouts: “Bandage it!”
Photos and video after the incident show pools of blood on the sidewalk.
Tehran’s police chief, Gen. Hossein Rahimi, later denied that his officers opened fire.
“Police treated people who had gathered with patience and tolerance,” Iranian media quoted Rahimi as saying. “Police did not shoot in the gatherings since broad-mindedness and restraint has been the agenda of the police forces of the capital.”
President Donald Trump has openly encouraged the demonstrators, even tweeting messages of support in Farsi and warning the government not to fire on them.
Trump, meanwhile, added to the controversy over his justification for killing Soleimani, saying Monday that “it doesn’t really matter” whether it was in response to an imminent threat to the United States.
In a tweet, Trump criticized Democrats for trying to determine whether Iranian attacks the administration has said were planned by Soleimani against U.S. targets were imminent.
“It doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past,” Trump wrote. The administration has held Soleimani, as head of Iran’s Quds Force, responsible for orchestrating Iran’s use of proxy forces in terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East, and the deaths of hundreds of U.S. soldiers over the years, long before the threat it has said justified the Jan. 3 U.S. drone strike that killed him.
In a separate tweet, Trump emphasized Soleimani’s past actions rather than the threat of future attacks. “The Democrats and Fake News are trying to make terrorist Soleimani into a wonderful guy, only because I did what should have been done for 20 years,” he wrote.
Trump promoted a manipulated image of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) wearing a turban and a headscarf in front of an Iranian flag, claiming it showed “the corrupted Dems trying their best to come to the Ayatollah’s rescue #NancyPelosiFakeNews.”
Many Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans have questioned the administration’s claims about the immediacy of the threat — and the targets — and charged that it has failed to provide full and accurate information about an action that brought the U.S. and Iran to the brink of war.
Gambrell writes for The Associated Press, The Washington Post and
The New York Times contributed to this report.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week in politics, including how the Trump administration and Congress have handled conflict with Iran, indications House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is preparing to send articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial of the President and what all the tumult means for 2020 Democrats.
Amna Nawaz (NewsHour): Back on Capitol Hill this week, the House of Representatives voted to check the President's war powers against Iran, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her Democratic Caucus to prepare for the next chapter on impeachment in the days ahead.
Here to help make sense of it all, as well as some eye-popping polling numbers from the Democratic primary field, are Shields and Brooks. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Happy Friday. Welcome to you both.
Let's start overseas, shall we?
David, it was a week ago that the U.S. assassinated the Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Iraq, three days since Iran retaliated.
President Trump says he wants peace. They just rolled out new sanctions against Iran today. Is this de-escalation?
David Brooks, New York Times: Yes.
A week ago, we didn't know where we were going. And it certainly looks a lot calmer than it did a week ago. And it looks more like a normal Middle East terror episode, in which case you have a terror army, whether it's Hezbollah or Iranian-state sponsored terrorism. They're ramping up ramping up activities.
And then the U.S. says, stop. You — let's — we're going to be in conflict, but let's not get carried away here. You're pushing the boundaries here.
And so we do an action, and when you do this kind of action, like killing Soleimani, it's using violence as a form of communication, saying you have pushed the boundaries, time to stop.
And then the other side, the terrorist side, has a chance to say, no, we're going to keep going, or they have a chance to say, message received, we won't push the boundaries, it's not in our interests either.
And that seems to have been what has happened. We have seen that through the Israeli-Hamas or fights. We have seen it through other terror fights. And it looks like a much more conventional sort of communication between a nation and a terror organization.
Amna Nawaz: At the same time, Mark, we have had 176 civilians killed as a result of those escalated tensions, right? That didn't happen in a vacuum, necessarily.
And now Iraq and Iran are kind of on the same page, wanting U.S. troops out, out of Iraq from the Iraqi Parliament, and out of the region from Iran, which has always been a stated goal.
I guess the question is — and we may not know this yet — but are we safer? That's what the administration is arguing.
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: My argument, I guess, would be that we're not.
But I go to the words of one exceptionally well-read Marine general, who later became secretary of defense, who said, history teaches — history teaches us that nations with allies thrive, nations without allies wither.
Every year, Pew Research, a very respected polling operation, polls in the world, 32 different countries, on trust and confidence. And the fact is, the United States under Donald Trump has plummeted in the world.
Among five world leaders, including Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin and Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Macron, the fact is that Donald is at the bottom. He has 29 percent of the world has confidence in him; 64 percent don't.
This is a total reverse, total reverse from Barack Obama, when 64 percent of the world had confidence in his judgment.
We are isolated as a people. I mean, Secretary Pompeo complained that the Brits and the Germans didn't go along. (A) there is no support in their country for it. (B) they were never consulted.
So, no, I think — I don't argue with David's assessment of the individual discrete events. But I think the overall pattern is that we're paying a terrible price for isolation.
And alliances have been the saving strength of the United States and the Western world since World War II, and they are in total disrepair at this point.
Amna Nawaz: A lot of the questions revolve around what will happen next, for sure, right? There's concern there could be an increase in some of those proxy militias you had mentioned, David.
I want to play a sound bite for you, though, from President Trump at a rally in Ohio last night. He was responding to the House's move to try to restrict some of those Presidential war powers that Presidents have had for several years now post-9/11.
Take a listen to what President Trump had to say last night:
President Donald Trump: They're all trying to say, how dare you take him out that way? You should get permission from Congress. You should come in and tell us what you want to do.
(BOOING)
President Donald Trump: You should come and tell us, so that we can call up the fake news that's back there, and we can leak it.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
Amna Nawaz: David, to some degree, no surprise the House said, we want you to come to us before you take more action against Iran.
But then we also saw a Republican senator, right, Mike Lee from Utah, outraged after a briefing from military intelligence leaders that he felt was completely insufficient.
Is this the time you think Congress starts to claw back some of that power?
David Brooks: No, I don't think so.
I mean, they have had the chance in bin Laden. They have had a lot of chances, and the executive has taken this power.
I do think the laws we have are obsolete. They're — for a time when not a terror war, whether it was like World War II or Vietnam, when there was a moment of peace and then a moment of war, and there was a transitionary moment where Congress would act between those two states.
But in an ongoing terror war, there's no moment of peace and there's no moment of war. It's constant engagement. And so for the President, in a position of constant conflict with Iran, where they're ramping up pressure, we're trying to fight them, a discrete episode seems to me outside the bounds of Congress.
Having said that, the President, executive branch shouldn't be running a long-running terror war without the constant communication with Congress and with the intelligence communities and the Intelligence Committees.
And so while I don't think Congress should be approving every little individual operation, it's certainly up to the executive branch to be in constant communication, so there are no surprises. And that doesn't seem to have happened.
Amna Nawaz: Mark, what do you make of the way the administration has been responding to those calls for greater oversight, maybe explaining and providing justification for this strike on Soleimani in the first place?
Mark Shields: Oh, I don't think there's any question the President has asserted the total autonomy of his office.
I mean, he sees no need to consult. He sees no congressional restraints. And I think, in spite of the fact that the House did act on the war policy, it's not going to go anywhere in the Senate.
But there are there are pockets of resistance. I mean, it was — whether it was Senator Lee or Congressman Gaetz in the House. I mean, whether in fact it takes on a larger dimension remains to be seen.
But make no mistake about it. Donald Trump and his administration make a serious mistake by not consulting. If they're not with you on the takeoff, they're not going to be with you on the crash landing.
And there's no — they have no stake in what happens as far as his policy is concerned. Obviously, they do care about the nation. But as far as his policy and whatever political damage there is done to him, if they in no way are consulted or asked their opinion or their judgment or just told to shut up and join…
David Brooks: And despite this episode with Soleimani, I do think there's a bipartisan move, almost a consensus, a populist consensus.
Trump has used military force less than any President since Jimmy Carter.
Mark Shields: Yes.
David Brooks:He's [Trump] not normally a military guy.
From the populists on the left and populists on the right in different versions, it's like the Middle East is a mess. We are not good at dealing with that region. Let's stay away.
And I do think, whether it's Mike Lee or people further on the left — Mike Lee's a Republican — there's a consensus, we shouldn't be involved in that region, or as little as possible.
SUMMARY:Hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets Monday to mourn Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike Friday. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, led funeral prayers and wept over Soleimani's body. But the fallout is more than emotional; as Iran and President Trump trade threats, the U.S. military is bracing for potential retaliation. Nick Schifrin reports.
SUMMARY: The Friday killing of Iran’s best-known military commander in a U.S. airstrike prompted an outpouring of grief in Tehran -- along with vows of vengeance. In the aftermath of Qassem Soleimani’s death, the country’s leaders and President Trump exchanged threats about what might come next. To share Iran’s perspective, Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations Majid Takht-Ravanchi joins Judy Woodruff.
SUMMARY: For two views on the latest developments in Iran and Iraq, Nick Schifrin speaks with Narges Bajoghli of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, author of “Iran Reframed: Anxieties of Power in the Islamic Republic,” and U.S. diplomat Ryan Crocker, who served as ambassador to Iraq, Syria, Kuwait and Lebanon and is now diplomat in residence at Princeton University.
SUMMARY:After trading threats with the U.S., Iran said Tuesday night it launched ballistic missiles on Iraqi facilities housing U.S. troops in retaliation for the American killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani. The attacks come after President Trump and top U.S. officials defended the Soleimani strike, which has been blamed for pushing the U.S. and Iran closer to war. Judy Woodruff and Nick Schifrin report.
SUMMARY:The U.S. killing of one of Iran’s top military leaders has prompted questions about whether the Trump administration has an effective strategy for Iran, Iraq and the larger Middle East. As Iran announces it has fired missiles at Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops, Nick Schifrin talks to Mara Karlin of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and the Hudson Institute’s Michael Doran.
SUMMARY: President Trump says Iran is “standing down” after firing missiles at Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops -- but causing no casualties. But Iran says its goal is to see U.S. forces leave the Middle East. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Karim Sadjadpour joins Nick Schifrin, Yamiche Alcindor and Judy Woodruff to discuss the latest developments.
NOTE:The effect is exactly opposite, the Iranian people and government are more united.
Excerpt
SUMMARY:For a congressional Republican’s perspective on the conflict between the U.S. and Iran, we turn to Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.) a member of the House Armed Services Committee and a former Marine who deployed twice to Iraq as a commander of intelligence teams. He joins Judy Woodruff to discuss why he supported the decision to kill Gen. Qassem Soleimani and what he expects next from Iran.
SUMMARY:For a congressional Democrat’s take on the conflict between the U.S. and Iran, we turn to Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) a member of the House Armed Services Committee. Crow is a lawyer and former Army Ranger who deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan during his military career. He joins Judy Woodruff to discuss why he is not satisfied with the Trump administration’s handling of the Soleimani strike.
SUMMARY: The fallout from the Trump administration’s killing of Qasem Soleimani continues to unfold -- and it could affect the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq. On Friday, Sec. of State Mike Pompeo rejected Iraqi calls for the U.S. to plan troop withdrawal. Retired Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmit, who served in the George W. Bush administration, and York University’s Thabit Abdullah join Nick Schifrin to discuss.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including the U.S. military’s killing of elite Iranian general Qassam Soleimani and its potential repercussions and how fundraising and polling numbers are stacking up for 2020 Democrats a month before the Iowa caucuses.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): Between the escalating conflict with Iran and the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, 2020 has already been a busy year for American politics.
Here to help us make sense of it all, Shields and Brooks. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Hello to both of you, and happy new year.
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: Happy new year.
Judy Woodruff: Although, as we have been reporting, the new year has gotten off to a sobering start.
Mark, what do you make of the Trump administration decision to target and kill this senior Iranian general?
Mark Shields: I don't know.
Every act like this has risk and reward, and I don't know anybody who can predict what will happen, Judy. I mean, it violates all of the rules that we have about going into armed conflict with disproportionate force and with fully understood objectives and with an exit strategy and with backing of our allies and so forth.
None of those was met. And the President doesn't have the benefit of the doubt. He treats truth like a second home. He only lives there occasionally, and, therefore, he doesn't have the natural credibility that American Presidents — and it has been hurt.
The Afghan papers, most recently The Washington Post, revealed 18 years of deception and deceit and self-delusion about the United States in Afghanistan, the lying that we have had and the evasion.
So, you know, I don't see it — I see it more impulsive than strategic, just like the entire Trump administration. It doesn't appear to be thought out.
Judy Woodruff: How do you respond to that?
David Brooks, New York Times: Yes.
Well, first, like the other 7.5 billion inhabitants of this Earth, I don't know either. But I do see it sort of on three levels, first, in the near term, the immediate term, which is, I think it's a reasonably good thing that somebody who was responsible for the deaths of 600 Americans and hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East meet some justice.
I do think that's a good thing. The fact that there were rallies around the Middle East celebrating his death is a sign of the destruction he has wrought.
Then there is the middle term, and that's somewhere between anxiety-inducing and terrifying, because we just — I don't think either Iraq or Iran or the U.S. want to have a war, but they have got to show they do something, and then we do something. And it could escalate into something.
I think it's extremely unlikely. But they play this game. I have been covering the Middle East for 30 years. And they play this game. And, sometimes, it goes fine and somebody just finally quiet — walks away, but, sometimes, it doesn't.
And so, in the middle term, I think we're overall right to be worried about that.
And then, in the long term, I think talent doesn't grow on trees, and this guy was their best guy. And so getting rid of your enemy's best guy probably in the long term yields some benefit.
And, second, his strategic — his basic signature move was to create militias around the Middle East, extragovernmental militias, in a sometimes hostile country. And to the extent that we can weaken that there should be militias all around the Middle East, then we have stabilized the Middle East long-term.
The middle term is what you have to worry about.
Judy Woodruff: And, Mark, do you get the idea the administration is prepared for what may come from this, as a result of this?
Mark Shields: No. No.
And I guess where take some — depart from David is, we have been down this road before. We had a major Republican leader address the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention and assure us that the foreign leader has weapons of mass destruction, there's no doubt he's amassing them to use against us, against our allies, I'm confident that he's on the verge of having nuclear weapons.
That was Dick Cheney. That was 18 years ago. And that was hundreds of thousand of deaths ago. As a consequence of this act, the Iraqi Parliament may very well do what it hasn't done. And that is act in concert and ask us to leave.
If they ask us to leave, now, what does that mean for our troops in Syria? What does that mean for any of our influence in the area?
Now, I just — I do not see any coherent, thoughtful policy emanating from this. It's almost like the administration has been scrambling to come up with a rationalization. They did it, and now, well, we're going to brief you on Tuesday. We're going to brief you 120 hours after the event as to what happened.
We're going to do it from a resort in Florida, I mean, suggesting the gravity of the moment — all of that. I mean, for a man who's sensitive to theatrics and optics, like Donald Trump is, none of this makes any sense.
David Brooks: Yes, I guess the only — the first thing I would say was, what Mark raised, all those are real possibilities.
And, frankly, it's above my pay grade to know all the different details of this. But a lot of people I admire, like Mike Mullen, who we just had on the show, or General Stan McChrystal, who was head of special ops, before running the Afghan war, they say, on balance, they see the risks and it's worth the risks.
And so these are really professional operators, and so you have to have some respect for that.
As for the Trump administration, I sort of agree. I often ask the administration officials from past administration, what did you learn inside that you didn't learn outside? And how is it going to affect your career as a pundit afterwards?
And they always say, you never know the actual information that is going on inside. In most administrations, there's all these backroom signals they're all sending even to their adversaries.
And so you have some confidence, well, these people know what they're doing.
I don't have that confidence right now. And so I do agree with Mark that I don't think there is a policy process in anything realm of the Trump administration. And so, therefore, the thought they have sketched out scenarios B, C, D, and Q, that's probably not happened. And so that's where the anxiety comes from.
Judy Woodruff: Are you discouraged?
Mark Shields: Judy, on the eve of going to war in Iraq, Jim Webb had been secretary of the Navy and later be secretary — senator from Virginia, asked a very straightforward question, which the administration, Bush administration, refused to confront. Are we as a nation prepared to be an occupying country and force in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years?
And he was — oh, what do you mean? What do you mean?
I mean, war begins with unintended consequences. Admiral Mullen referred to that. I mean, on the eve of World War I, the German general staff was absolutely convinced 42 days to conquer France and France's army.
I mean, and here we have 75 years after Victory in Europe Day, and we have troops in Europe, and we have American troops in Japan, and 67 years after the armistice in Korea, we're on the front lines in Korea.
I mean, so…
David Brooks: I don't think anyone wants to do boots on the ground.
I certainly would find that appalling. But the Middle East fights their wars differently. They — it's like a little shot here and then a little shot there. And it's choreographed. You go up here. You go there. And so they have been doing this. And they're professionals at it, which is — and we're not. So that should be faced.
SUMMARY: Words and actions between the U.S. and Iran are escalating. On Sunday, U.S. military strikes on an Iraqi militia group backed by Iran killed 25 fighters in what the U.S. said was retaliation for rocket fire that killed an American defense contractor. Brian Hook, the State Department’s special representative for Iran, and Vali Nasr of Johns Hopkins University join Nick Schifrin to discuss.
SUMMARY: In Baghdad, supporters of an Iran-backed militia remained outside the gates of the U.S. Embassy after attempting to storm the compound earlier in the day. The U.S. military planned to move more Marines in, but the Iraqi protesters insisted they won’t leave until their demand -- that U.S. forces leave Iraq entirely -- is met. The Washington Post’s Mustafa Salim joins Nick Schifrin from Baghdad.
SUMMARY:A tense new year has dawned in Baghdad after U.S. airstrikes against an Iranian-backed militia prompted one of the worst attacks on a U.S. Embassy in years. Bilal Wahab of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Kirsten Fontenrose of the Atlantic Council join Nick Schifrin to discuss whether the U.S. is falling into an Iranian “trap,” what the Iraqi people want and what to expect next.
SUMMARY: Qassam Soleimani was the Middle East's most recognized military commander, strategist and operational chief of Iran's militant proxies and a symbol of its regional ambitions. He was killed in a targeted U.S. drone attack Friday at Baghdad’s international airport. Nick Schifrin reports and joins special correspondent Jane Ferguson and Judy Woodruff to discuss his death and the regional response.
SUMMARY:How is Iran likely to react to the American military strike that killed top general Qassam Soleimani -- and how well prepared is the U.S. to withstand that response? Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and retired Adm. Michael Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, join Nick Schifrin to discuss Soleimani's role and how Iran will adapt without him.
SUMMARY: An elite Iranian general is dead, and the United States and Iran appear even closer to conflict. In Washington, members of Congress had mixed reactions to the killing of Qassam Soleimani. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss why he believes President Trump should have consulted Congress before the strike.
SUMMARY: When the U.S. military killed an elite Iranian general in Iraq on Friday, Washington called it self-defense, while Tehran called it a crime -- and vowed vengeance. Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the evidence that Qassam Soleimani presented an imminent threat to American lives and why his assassination “had to be done.”
SUMMARY:Iran is vowing revenge after U.S. airstrikes on Friday killed the country’s military leader Qassem Suleimani. Thousands of American troops are heading to the Middle East as tensions with Tehran escalate. Douglas Ollivant, former Director for Iraq at the National Security Council under the Bush and Obama administrations, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the diplomatic fallout.
SUMMARY:Members of Hezbollah and their supporters gathered on Sunday in Beirut, Lebanon, to mourn the death of Iran's top military leader, General Qassem Suleimani, who was killed by a U.S. military airstrike on Friday in Iraq. NewsHour Weekend Special Correspondent Jane Ferguson reports on how Iran’s most powerful proxy group is responding to the loss of their revered hero.
SUMMARY:After tensions with Iran nearly resulted in U.S. airstrikes last week, President Trump has fired a different type of weapon, levying new economic sanctions specifically targeting the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader. At the same time, top U.S. officials pursued diplomatic measures while visiting the Middle East. But Iran said the U.S. is the aggressor. Nick Schifrin reports.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including President Trump’s response to the conflict with Iran and controversy around former Vice President Joe Biden’s comments about working with segregationists.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): This week in politics, Joe Biden's comments on working with segregationists, and tensions with Iran escalate to new heights.
It's time for the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Hello to both of you. A very, very full week.
So, Mark, let's talk about what we are leading with tonight, and that is, again, the tense situation, standoff, whatever you want to call it, between the United States and Iran, with the latest news being President Trump had authorized a military strike, but then — or almost authorized, and then, at the last minute, pulled it back.
What do we make of this?
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:Well, the President is keeping his word he made during the campaign to be unpredictable. And I think unpredictable is what this qualifies as, Judy.
It's a little unsettling, obviously, because there is no scholar warrior like Jim Mattis in the room. It isn't — you don't get the sense that this has been well-thought-out and the idea that the country is prepared.
There is no sense of what our objective is, and how we will know we have succeeded, and how the country gets on board, and whether, in fact, we do have, as we — for example, George H.W. Bush had 39 nations in the coalition in 1991 when he was responding to the invasion of Kuwait. And this is — we are virtually alone.
I mean, it's unsettling. I'm relieved that the President did. I'm rather that he found out so late in the game, that nobody thought to tell him that we're talking about human casualties. But that's where we are.
Judy Woodruff: What does this say to you, David, about this sort of last-minute reverse course?
David Brooks, New York Times: Yes.
Well, first, I'm glad he reversed course. It does seems disproportionate to me. And disproportion is one of the primary elements of just war theory going back to Saint Augustine. So, Donald Trump and Saint Augustine have one thing in common.
I guess I agree with Mark. I don't know what the strategy here — and, most importantly, I don't know — I don't know Donald Trump's theory of the Iranian regime. They have been expanding their terror activities and seemingly stepping up to the pace.
But are there — is there a battle within the Iranian regime we should be conscious of to try not to tilt things over to the hard-core radicals? Or do we just need to lay down some deterrence? Is there a way we could sweet-talk them into being nicer? Like, there's all these things.
And it's all about the regime. Are they the aggressor? Are we the aggressor here? These are the basic questions that underlie how you react.
You need to — in order to know how to react, you got to know how they will react, and you have to have some theory of what they're thinking. And a normal President would give an Oval Office address and tell us, but we don't really have that.
So I'm sort of struck. I don't know what the proper deterrence is, because I don't know what will deter or what their goals are.
Judy Woodruff: Mark, is there clarity in the administration's approach to Iran, to what is going on?
Mark Shields: No. No, there isn't, Judy.
And the old aphorism in Washington [DC] is, if you want people in on a rocky landing, you better have them be sure that they're on board for the takeoff.
I mean, that is — coming back to George H.W. Bush, who was probably the model in this regard, he got his position ratified by the United Nations Security Council and approved by a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, so that there was this a sense of what our objective was, what the — why the force was being applied, and that there had been an international effort to enlist support, a successful one.
All of that is missing here, Judy. And so, as a consequence, there's just, I think, as David said, both curiosity, anxiety, and just tension.
So we have accidentally walked into the position where we have drawn a red line, where Pompeo was said that you cannot kill Americans. And if you do that, suddenly, things change radically. So that's a red line.
And so if they do end up killing Americans, accidentally or on purpose, then what happens? And if you don't have the overall strategy — they have got so many tools at their disposal. They could do cyber-warfare. They could attack Iranian forces that are spread around the Middle East.
They can, as earlier Presidents have done, gone after the Iranian navy. There are lots of different things they could do. Some of them would kill people. Some of them wouldn't kill people. But if you don't have the overall strategy, you don't know what in order to do those things.
So every day becomes its own decision points. And you're not really in control. It's — you're just stumbling around in the dark, doing one thing. Then they do something, and then they do something. And that, it seems to me, a perfect recipe for escalation.
Judy Woodruff: What about the question that I was asking, I think, Senator Risch and Senator Reed, Mark?
And that is, does this have longer-lasting effects, in that, does it give the sense that this is an administration that is indecisive, weak, and then have — in other words, are there lasting effects? Or is this just something you move on and move on to the next crisis?
Mark Shields:The next crisis.
Well, I mean, I don't think the — I don't want to accuse the President of being weak, just as a citizen, quite frankly, not as — taking off my analyst hat, because he did show restraint, but about policy that he has not been able to articulate or explain, and therefore to enlist support for it.
So, we're all by ourselves here, Judy. That's the difficult part. There are no allies. And that is — I think that's a consequence of everything we have been through for the first three years of this administration.
David Brooks: Yes.
And, at the core, I think he is America first. And that goes back to — whether he knows it or not, to a sort of an isolationist tendency, that we shouldn't get involved in foreign adventures. And that's pretty much where the American people are right now, and even where the Republican Party is.
And so I think there's that core. But if you looked at his rhetoric, you would think he was most aggressive person on Earth, because his rhetoric is, we will rain down fire and death upon you.
And so there's a gigantic gap between the way he talks and mostly what he's been doing.
Mark Shields: And it does — it's the maximum application. It's sort of contradictory, maximum application of force to the Iranian regime, yet I'm not going to get involved or we're not going to get involved in any foreign entanglements, which could collide.
I mean, the maximum force at some point could lead to a foreign entanglement. That's — I think that's the dilemma.
SUMMARY:President Trump says he approved an airstrike against Iran in retaliation for the downing of a U.S. drone, only to call it off last-minute upon deciding the potential for casualties was too high. Now, some former senior military and diplomatic officials are questioning the President’s decision-making process. Nick Schifrin reports.
SUMMARY: According to President Trump, the U.S. military was ready to launch an airstrike against Iran as a response to their shooting down an unmanned U.S. drone when he called it off. He laid out differing timelines for his decision-making, but Trump was consistent in attributing the attack's cancellation to his worry over potential Iranian casualties. Judy Woodruff talks to Yamiche Alcindor for more.
SUMMARY: A day after President Trump said he had called off a planned airstrike against Iran shortly before it was due to occur, governments of both countries were preoccupied with the conflict, which represents the closest Iran and the United States have come to war in 30 years. Judy Woodruff talks to special correspondent Reza Sayah, reporting from Tehran, about the reaction and “anxiety” among Iranians.
SUMMARY: Although tensions between the U.S. and Iran are high, officials from both countries insist they don't want a military confrontation. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani says Iran will resist sanctions but not wage war, while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called sending more U.S. troops to the region a "deterrent." Meanwhile, U.S. allies in Europe are sharply divided on Iran. Nick Schifrin reports.
I am Retired U.S. Navy (22yrs) and a Vietnam Veteran. After my Navy retirement I was in the computer related industry, now retired. In 2000 I was a registered Republican and voted for George W. Bush. Six months of having Bush in the Whitehouse forced me to re-evaluate my political stance. I had always thought of myself as a Moderate Republican, but was a Republican by "default" NOT because of close examination of the GOP. Due to what has happened in America since 2000, I now consider myself a progressive, and registered as a Non-Affiliated voter.
*Anti-First Amendment policies that attempt to turn America into a theocracy by enshrining ANY religious belief as law.
* Any attempt to suppress human or Constitutional rights.
* Any law or policy that supports discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, race/color, gender, sexual orientation, or any law that does NOT support Equal Treatment under the law.
*Any law or policy that attempts to suppress Freedom of the Press or Free Speech.
LINK DISCLAIMER:
There is no guarantee that any link provided in this blog will always work, especially for older links. The validity of any link is governed by the source-site policies. Some sites will archive articles and require subscription to access. Very small sites, such as a local town newspaper, may not archive at all.
