dinsdag 14 januari 2020

De NYT over de Soleimani-aanslag.

Vorige nacht las ik MoA over 'Soleimani' en daar werd gelinkt naar dit NYT artikel.

Het leek me aardig om nu eens een lang NYT artikel hier te plaatsen.
Ik schijn me te hebben geregistreerd. Ik weet niet of het voor iedereen zichtbaar is.
De 'transplantatie'  is redelijk gelukt. Enkele foto's verwijderd.

Wat ik me herinner:
1) Het is niet zeker dat die 'Amerikaan'  (mr. Hamid)  door Kitaab Hezbolah -KH- is gedood.
Zo ja: dan was deze dode onbedoeld.
Want: Deze KH pleegde pesterij-aanslagen, altijd zonder doden. 

2) De vergelding was natuurlijk buitensporig: 25 doden.
3) De volks-woede tegenover de Ambassade was oprecht en terecht, gezien de onevenredige vergelding.
4) Bolton had steeds aangedrongen op revanche en  geweld t a v Iran.  
Ook op het doden van Soleimani.
Trump  besloot :  Ik doe het pas als er een Amerikaan wordt gedood.

5) Na de dood van mr. Hamid , èn de bestorming van de Green Zone, hakte Trump de kmnoop door: OK.  je mag Soleimani doden.

NB:  Eén van de schrijvers is Ronen Bergman,  de schrijver van 'Rise and Kill first',  over de 2200 moordaanslagen die de Mossad pleegde in de afgelopen 70 jaar: elk jaar 20 aanslagen.

Hieronder  de NYT:  Dank,  NYT.

 Seven Days in January.

How Trump Pushed U.S. and Iran

to the Brink of War -

The New York Times


 By Peter Baker, Ronen Bergman,

David D. Kirkpatrick, Julian E. Barnes

and Alissa J. Rubin


Published Jan. 11, 2020

Updated Jan. 13, 2020


WASHINGTON — The plane was late and the kill team was worried. International listings showed that Cham Wings Airlines Flight 6Q501, scheduled to take off from Damascus at 7:30 p.m. for Baghdad, had departed, but in fact, an informant at the airport reported, it was still on the ground and the targeted passenger had not yet shown up.
The hours ticked by and some involved in the operation wondered if it should be called off. Then, just before the plane door closed, a convoy of cars pulled up on the tarmac carrying Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s security mastermind, who climbed on board along with two escorts. Flight 6Q501 lifted off, three hours late, bound for the Iraqi capital.
The plane landed at Baghdad International Airport just after midnight, at 12:36 a.m., and the first to disembark were General Suleimani and his entourage. Waiting at the bottom of the gangway was Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, an Iraqi official in charge of militias and close to Iran. Two cars carrying the group headed into the night — shadowed by American MQ-9 Reaper drones. At 12:47, the first of several missiles smashed into the vehicles, engulfing them in flames and leaving 10 charred bodies inside.
The operation that took out General Suleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, propelled the United States to the precipice of war with Iran and plunged the world into seven days of roiling uncertainty. The story of those seven days, and the secret planning in the months preceding them, ranks as the most perilous chapter so far in President Trump’s three years in office after his decision to launch an audacious strike on Iran, and his attempt through allies and a back channel to keep the ensuing crisis from mushrooming out of control.

Continue reading the main story
The president’s decision to ratchet up decades of simmering conflict with Iran set off an extraordinary worldwide drama, much of which played out behind the scenes. In capitals from Europe to the Middle East, leaders and diplomats sought to head off a full-fledged new war while at the White House and Pentagon, the president and his advisers ordered more troops to the region.
Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler was so alarmed he dispatched his brother to Washington for a clandestine meeting with Mr. Trump. European leaders, incensed at being kept in the dark, scrambled to keep Iran from escalating. If it did, Americans developed plans to strike a command-and-control ship and conduct a cyberattack to partly disable Iran’s oil and gas sector.



Credit...Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times

But the United States also sent secret messages through Swiss intermediaries urging Iran not to respond so forcefully that Mr. Trump would feel compelled to go even further. After it did respond, firing 16 missiles at bases housing American troops without hurting anyone as a relatively harmless show of force, a message came back through the Swiss saying that would be the end of its reprisal for now. The message, forwarded to Washington within five minutes after it was received, persuaded the president to stand down.

When the week ended without the war many feared, Mr. Trump boasted that he had taken out an American enemy. But the struggle between two nations is not really over. Iran may find other ways to take revenge. Iraqi leaders may expel American forces, accomplishing in death what General Suleimani tried and failed to do in life. And in the confusion, a Ukrainian civilian passenger jet was destroyed by an Iranian missile, killing 176 people.
The episode briefly gave Mr. Trump’s allies something to cheer, distracting from the coming Senate impeachment trial, but now he faces questions even among Republicans about the shifting justifications for the strike that he and his national security team have offered. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo initially cited the need to forestall an “imminent” attack and the president has amplified that to say four American embassies were targeted.
But administration officials said they did not actually know when or where such an attack might occur and one State Department official said it was “a mistake” to use the word “imminent.” And some senior military commanders were stunned that Mr. Trump picked what they considered a radical option with unforeseen consequences.
This account, based on interviews with dozens of Trump administration officials, military officers, diplomats, intelligence analysts and others in the United States, Europe and the Middle East, offers new details about what may be the most consequential seven days of the Trump presidency.
The confrontation may have actually begun by accident. For years, Iran has sponsored proxy forces in Iraq, competing for influence with American troops who first arrived in the invasion of 2003. Starting last fall, Iranian-backed militias launched rockets at Iraqi bases that house American troops, shattering nerves more than doing much damage.
So when rockets smashed into the K1 military base near Kirkuk on Dec. 27, killing an American civilian contractor, Nawres Waleed Hamid, and injuring several others, the only surprise was the casualties. Kataib Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militia group held responsible, had fired at least five other rocket attacks on bases with Americans in the previous month without deadly results.
American intelligence officials monitoring communications between Kataib Hezbollah and General Suleimani's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps learned that the Iranians wanted to keep the pressure on the Americans but had not intended to escalate the low-level conflict. The rockets landed in a place and at a time when American and Iraqi personnel normally were not there and it was only by unlucky chance that Mr. Hamid was killed, American officials said.

But that did not matter to Mr. Trump and his team. An American was dead and the president who had called off a retaliatory strike with 10 minutes to go in June and otherwise refrained from military action in response to Iranian provocations now faced a choice.
Advisers told him Iran had probably misinterpreted his previous reluctance to use force as a sign of weakness. To reestablish deterrence, he should authorize a tough response. On holiday at Mar-a-Lago, his Florida resort, the president agreed to strikes on five sites in Iraq and Syria two days later, killing at least 25 members of Kataib Hezbollah and injuring at least 50 more.

Credit...Anmar Khalil/Associated Press

Credit...Khalid Mohammed/Associated Press

Two days later, on Dec. 31, pro-Iranian protesters backed by many members of the same militia responded by breaking into the American Embassy compound in Baghdad and setting fires. Worried about repeats of the 1979 embassy takeover in Iran or the 2012 attack on a diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, Mr. Trump and his team ordered more than 100 Marines to rush to Baghdad from Kuwait.
The Marines received little information about their mission or what was happening on the ground as they loaded their magazines with ammunition. All they knew was they were being sent to secure the embassy with one clear order: If protesters entered the compound, kill them.

Some of the Marines made dry jokes about the movie, “Rules of Engagement,” starring Samuel L. Jackson as a commander whose unit fires on a crowd of embassy protesters, stirring an international episode and a court-martial. But when the Marines reached Baghdad, none had to open fire. They used nonlethal weapons like tear gas to disperse protesters and the siege ended without bloodshed.

Still, watching television in Florida, Mr. Trump grew agitated by the chaos and ready to authorize a more robust response. And on Dec. 31, even as the protests were beginning, a top secret memo started circulating, signed by Robert C. O’Brien, his national security adviser, and listing potential targets, including an Iranian energy facility and a command-and-control ship used by the Revolutionary Guards to direct small boats that harass oil tankers in the waters around Iran. The ship had been an irritant to Americans for months, especially after a series of covert attacks on oil tankers.
The memo also listed a more provocative option — targeting specific Iranian officials for death by military strike. Among the targets mentioned, according to officials who saw it, was Abdul Reza Shahlai, an Iranian commander in Yemen who helped finance armed groups across the region.
Another name on the list: General Suleimani.
General Suleimani was hardly a household name in the United States, but as far as American officials were concerned, he was responsible for more instability and death in the Middle East than almost anyone.
As the head of the elite Quds Force, General Suleimani was effectively the second-most powerful man in Iran and had a hand in managing proxy wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, including a campaign of roadside bombs and other attacks that killed an estimated 600 American troops during the height of the Iraq war.

At 62, with a narrow face, gray hair and a close-cropped beard, General Suleimani was known for traveling without body armor or personal protection, collaborating with some of the most ruthless figures in the region while sharing meals with the fighters and telling them to take care of their mothers, according to a Hezbollah field commander who met him in Syria.

After decades of working in the shadows, General Suleimani had emerged in recent years following the Arab Spring and war with the Islamic State as the public figure most associated with Iran’s goal of achieving regional dominance. Photographs surfaced showing him visiting the front lines in Iraq or Syria, meeting with Iran’s supreme leader in Tehran or sitting down with the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon. When President Bashar al-Assad of Syria visited Tehran last year, it was General Suleimani who welcomed him.
By the end of 2019, General Suleimani could boast of a number of Iranian accomplishments: Mr. Assad, a longtime Iranian ally, was safely in power in Damascus, Syria’s capital, prevailing in a bloody, multifront, yearslong civil war and the Quds Force had a permanent presence on Israel’s frontier. A number of militias General Suleimani had helped foster were receiving salaries from the Iraqi government and exerting power in Iraq’s political system. And the Islamic State had been defeated in Syria and Iraq thanks, in part, to ground forces he had overseen, one area where he and the United States shared interests.

Credit...Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times

Credit...Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times

For the past 18 months, officials said, there had been discussions about whether to target General Suleimani. Figuring that it would be too difficult to hit him in Iran, officials contemplated going after him during one of his frequent visits to Syria or Iraq and focused on developing agents in seven different entities to report on his movements — the Syrian Army, the Quds Force in Damascus, Hezbollah in Damascus, the Damascus and Baghdad airports and the Kataib Hezbollah and Popular Mobilization forces in Iraq.
By the time tensions with Iran spiked in May with attacks on four oil tankers, John R. Bolton, then the president’s national security adviser, asked the military and intelligence agencies to produce new options to deter Iranian aggression. Among those presented to Mr. Bolton was killing General Suleimani and other leaders of the Revolutionary Guards. At that point, work to track General Suleimani’s travels grew more intense.
By September, the United States Central Command and Joint Special Operations Command were brought into the process to plan a possible operation. Various alternatives were discussed, some in Syria, some in Iraq. Syria seemed more complicated, both because the American military had less freedom of movement there and because General Suleimani spent most of his time with Hezbollah officers and officials did not want to bring them into the mix and risk a new war with Israel.

Agents recruited in Syria and Iraq reported from time to time on General Suleimani’s movements, according to an official involved. Surveillance revealed that he flew on a number of airlines and sometimes tickets for a trip were bought on more than one to throw off pursuers. He would be delivered to his plane at the last possible moment, then sit in the front row of business class so he could get off first and depart quickly.
General Suleimani set off on his last trip on New Year’s Day, flying to Damascus and then heading by car to Lebanon to meet with Mr. Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, before returning to Damascus that evening. During their meeting, Mr. Nasrallah said in a later speech, he warned General Suleimani that the American news media was focusing on him and publishing his photograph.
“This was media and political preparation for his assassination,” Mr. Nasrallah said.
But as he recalled, General Suleimani laughed, and said that, in fact, he hoped to die a martyr and asked Mr. Nasrallah to pray that he would.
That same day, at C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va., Gina Haspel was working to fulfill that prayer.
Ms. Haspel, the director, was shown intelligence indicating that General Suleimani was preparing to move from Syria to Iraq. Officials told her there was additional intelligence that he was working on a large-scale attack intended to drive American forces out of the Middle East.
There was no single definitive piece of intelligence. Instead, officials said, C.I.A. officers spoke of the “mosaic effect,” multiple scraps of information that came together indicating that General Suleimani was organizing proxy forces around the region, including in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq, to attack American embassies and bases. Several officials said they did not have enough concrete information to describe such a threat as “imminent,” despite Mr. Pompeo’s assertion, but they did see a worrying pattern.
While Mr. Pompeo also claimed later that such an attack could kill “hundreds,” other officials said they had no specific intelligence suggesting that. Most American facilities in the region have been heavily fortified for years and such an immense death toll would be unlikely; at no point in the last two decades, even during the worst of the Iraq war, have any hostile forces been able to pull off such a deadly assault on Americans at once.

Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times

Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times

Nonetheless, Ms. Haspel was convinced there was evidence of a coming attack and argued the consequences of not striking General Suleimani were more dangerous than waiting, officials said. While others worried about reprisals, she reassured colleagues that Iran’s response would be measured. Indeed, she predicted the most likely response would be an ineffectual missile strike from Iran on Iraqi bases where American troops were stationed.
“If past is prologue, we have learned that when we enforce a red line with Iran, when Iran gets rapped on the knuckles, they tactically retreat,” said Dan Hoffman, a former C.I.A. officer who served in Iraq. “The retreat might be ephemeral before Iran probes its enemies with more gradually escalating attacks, but we’ve seen it repeatedly.”
There was little dissent about killing General Suleimani among Mr. Trump’s senior advisers, but some Pentagon officials were shocked that the president picked what they considered the most extreme option and some intelligence officials worried that the possible long-term ramifications were not adequately considered, particularly if action on Iraqi soil prompted Iraq to expel American forces.
“The whole thing seems haphazard to me,” said Marc Polymeropoulos, a former senior C.I.A. official who retired last year.
The Trump administration has said that General Suleimani was going to Baghdad as part of the attack plot, but there are different theories about the purpose of his visit.

General Suleimani had long played a role as power broker in Iraqi politics, and two Iraqi politicians with links to Iran said he was coming to Baghdad to help break an impasse over replacing the prime minister after the collapse of the government in November in the face of anti-Iran protests.
But Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi, still serving as a caretaker until a new government is formed, told Parliament after the drone strike that General Suleimani had another goal — to bring an Iranian response to a Saudi offer to reduce tensions. The shadow conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia had been heating up. After Iranian forces were blamed for an attack on two Saudi oil facilities in September and Mr. Trump opted against a military response, Saudi officials worried that they were vulnerable and opened a back channel.
In his speech to Parliament, Mr. Abdul Mahdi said he had planned to meet with General Suleimani a few hours after his arrival in Baghdad. “It was expected that he was carrying a message for me from the Iranian side responding to the Saudi message that we had sent to the Iranian side to reach agreements and breakthroughs,” Mr. Abdul Mahdi said.

Credit...Ivor Prickett for The New York Times

Credit...Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times

A Saudi official said he was unaware of any message carried by General Suleimani and some analysts doubted Mr. Abdul Mahdi’s account. “That is laughable,” said Mohammed Alyahya, the editor in chief of Al Arabiya English, a Saudi news site. “Suddenly, this man is a diplomat extraordinaire one day before he died?”
Another theory, advanced by an intelligence official involved in the operation, held that General Suleimani was visiting Iraq to quash anti-Iranian protests by having his Shia militia break them up by force. He hoped to install a new anti-American government that might even throw out United States forces.

Whatever his goals, they died with him in the mangled wreckage at Baghdad’s airport. Altogether, 10 people were killed — General Suleimani, Mr. al-Muhandis and their aides. Mr. al-Muhandis had helped found Kataib Hezbollah, the militia held responsible for the Dec. 27 rocket attack that killed the American contractor.

U.S. Embassyattacked
Tigris River
Tuesday:Protesters attackU.S. Embassy.
Friday:U.S. strikes kill top Iranian generalat Baghdad Airport.
U.S. Embassy
U.S. Embassy

The New York Times
But another Iranian commander escaped. The same night General Suleimani died, American forces tried to kill Mr. Shahlai, the Quds Force commander in Yemen mentioned in Mr. O’Brien’s memo. Still, the attack failed because of an undisclosed problem with the intelligence.
Iran braced for more. “There was a state of mobilization to get ready in case that was the first stage in a wider plan,” said Mohammed Obeid, a Lebanese political activist with ties to Iran’s “resistance axis” in the region. “There could have been other steps that the Americans or the Israelis would take, broadening the circle of confrontation.”
Mr. Trump planned to play golf the next morning, Jan. 4, but advisers concluded it would send the wrong message as General Suleimani’s death stirred unrest around the Middle East and raised the prospect of a wider conflict with Iran.
The president was initially upbeat, expecting the operation to be greeted with applause much like the raid in October that killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State. Indeed, Mr. Trump opened his first statement to reporters on the mission that Friday by describing General Suleimani as the “No. 1 terrorist anywhere in the world,” much as he had opened his statement a couple of months ago calling Mr. al-Baghdadi the “world’s No. 1 terrorist leader.”
But as the president watched television over the weekend, he grew angry that critics were accusing him of reckless escalation. He sought validation from guests at his Florida clubs, recounting details of the Baghdad Embassy protests and drinking in their praise for his decisiveness. He told some associates that he wanted to preserve the support of Republican hawks in the Senate in the coming impeachment trial, naming Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas as an example, even though they had not spoken about Iran since before Christmas.

While Mr. Trump tipped off another hawk, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who was visiting in Florida, his administration gave no advance warning to its European allies or Persian Gulf partners in advance of the strike. The only foreign leader who appeared in the know was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who had spoken with Mr. Pompeo before the attack and later offered a cryptic public hint hours before it took place.

Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

Credit...Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times

“We know that our region is stormy; very, very dramatic things are happening in it,” Mr. Netanyahu told reporters, unprompted, on the tarmac in Tel Aviv before departing for a visit to Athens. He went on to offer support for the United States “and to its full right to defend itself and its citizens.”
Israeli leaders were later pleased by the death of General Suleimani, one of their deadliest enemies, but remained silent lest they provoke retaliation, even as shelter supplies were checked and a ski resort near the Syrian frontier was briefly closed.
Yet some figured that if Hezbollah were to attack Israel on Iran’s behalf, it might be better to have that battle now. “This camp believes that there will be such a clash anyway and the best timing is before the U.S. elections — and that Israel may lose this president in the White House,” said Ofer Zalzberg, an analyst at the International Crisis Group.
In Riyadh, the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, was unsettled. Despite his hawkish approach to Iran, he has been recently accepting offers from Pakistanis, Omanis, Iraqis and others to mediate. Now, he immediately dispatched his younger brother, Prince Khalid bin Salman, the deputy defense minister, on an emergency mission to the White House.

The Saudi view was “hitting Suleimani is great, but what is the plan?” said Sir John Jenkins, a former British ambassador to Riyadh. “If there is a plan, we are down with it. If not, we all have to de-escalate.”
Prince Khalid was pleased by whatever Mr. Trump told him, telling diplomats afterward that the royal family was glad the president had dealt Iran a serious blow — and relieved that he did not seem inclined to escalate further.
But many were not sure. Mr. Trump issued bellicose threats to destroy Iran if it retaliated, including cultural treasures in violation of international law, touching off international outrage and forcing his own defense secretary to publicly disavow the threat, saying it would be a war crime.
Mr. Trump was largely alone on the world stage. No major European power, not even Britain, voiced support for the drone strike, even as leaders agreed that General Suleimani had blood on his hands. As Le Monde, the French newspaper, put it, the rift signaled “a new stage in the trans-Atlantic divorce over the Middle East.”
Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear accord with Iran has been a major point of contention. European leaders deeply resented the unilateral pullout, seeing that as a grave error that started a cycle of sanctions and recriminations that led to the seven-day showdown and now the restart of the Iranian nuclear program.
When Mr. Pompeo phoned his European counterparts after the strike, they expressed concern. In a 15-minute call, Foreign Minister Heiko Maas of Germany said the killing had not made it any easier to stabilize the region. Mr. Pompeo responded that the situation was now more stable.
The French and Japanese both offered to serve as mediators, but that only annoyed Mr. Trump, who dislikes middlemen. So the Europeans focused on keeping Tehran from overreacting.

Credit...Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times




Video Shows Aftermath of U.S. Strike That Killed Top Iran Commander

President Trump authorized the attack early Friday at Baghdad International Airport that killed Iran’s top security and intelligence commander, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani.

Suleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel. But we caught him in the act. We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war.

1:36Video Shows Aftermath of U.S. Strike That Killed Top Iran Commander
President Trump authorized the attack early Friday at Baghdad International Airport that killed Iran’s top security and intelligence commander, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani.CreditCredit...Ali Mohammadi/Bloomberg News
A senior German diplomat sent a text message to his Iranian counterpart urging calm. He got back a terse, though polite, message. In a series of phone calls, European officials tried to give the Iranians a sense that it was not them against the rest of the world but that in fact there was a global public beyond the United States, according to one European diplomat.
President Emmanuel Macron of France played an active role, reaching out to both sides. “Macron’s specificity is that he does not approve, but he also does not condemn,” said Michel Duclos, a former French ambassador to Syria.
Mr. Macron reached Mr. Trump on Sunday and emphasized the need for de-escalation. Mr. Trump suggested he was still open to diplomacy. All the Iranians had to do was come to him and they could make a deal, Mr. Trump said, according to a senior French official.
Two days later, Mr. Macron spoke with President Hassan Rouhani of Iran and reminded him that he had “missed a chance in September” to talk directly with Mr. Trump in a phone call Mr. Macron tried to arrange on the sidelines of the annual United Nations session.
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany spoke with Mr. Trump, too, and expressed concern for Iraq’s stability if allied troops withdrew. If the United States stayed, she said, Germany would also. Mr. Trump joked that Germany was welcome to lead the international force and replace the Americans. Ms. Merkel laughed.

The most important European country in these seven days, it turned out, was Switzerland, which has served as the intermediary between the United States and Iran since they broke off diplomatic relations in 1980.
Hours after the strike, Markus Leitner, the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, headed to the Iranian Foreign Ministry for the first of two visits that day, according to a Swiss analyst. The Americans had sent a letter to the Iranians through the Swiss warning against any retaliation for the drone strike that would incite further military action by Mr. Trump.
The Americans “said that if you want to get revenge, get revenge in proportion to what we did,” Rear Adm. Ali Fadavi, the deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards, told Iranian state television.
American officials disputed that characterization and analysts doubted it was that explicit, although that could be how Tehran interpreted it. In any case, Mr. Leitner went back to the Foreign Ministry at day’s end for the Iranian response.
Unbeknown to the Iranians, Mr. Trump had agreed to targeting the other sites originally considered — the oil and gas facility and the command-in-control ship — as part of any further retaliation that might be necessary if Iran responded to the drone strike. Despite Mr. Trump’s threat, none of the targets on the list were actually cultural, an official said; that was just presidential bluster, aggravated by an instinct to double down in the face of criticism.
On Tuesday, the Defense Special Missile and Astronautics Center, part of the National Security Agency, pulled together multiple strands of information, including overhead imagery and communication intercepts, to conclude that an Iranian missile strike on Iraqi bases was coming, officials said. The center sent the warning to the White House.
Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. O’Brien immediately headed to the Situation Room in the basement, joined later by the president and Mr. Pompeo. At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, led by its chairman, Gen. Mark A. Milley, convened in a third-floor conference room and discussed how to move troops and families in the region to safer locations.

Credit...John Moore/Getty Images

Credit...Nasser Nasser/Associated Press

Just after 5:30 p.m., an almost robotic voice came over a speakerphone in the Situation Room. “Sir, we have indications of a launch at 22:30 Zulu Time from western Iran in the direction of Iraq, Syria and Jordan.” Reports began coming in faster. The missiles were staggered but most were streaking toward Al Asad Air Base in Iraq, home to 2,000 American troops.
The barrage ended after an hour but base commanders ordered troops to remain in shelter in case more missiles came. Around 7:30, about an hour after the strikes concluded, Mr. Esper and General Milley headed to the White House to meet with Mr. Trump.
The missiles damaged a helicopter, some tents and other structures but, thanks to the advance warning, inflicted no casualties. And through the Swiss came another message: That was it. That was their retribution.
The Americans were struck by the speed of the communication — it was shown to Mr. Trump and Mr. Pompeo within five minutes after the Swiss received it from Tehran. They passed the message by encrypted fax to their embassy in Washington and then to Brian H. Hook, the special representative on Iran, two minutes after the Iranians gave it to them.
Mr. Esper, a veteran of the Persian Gulf war of 1991, counseled caution. “Let’s stay calm,” he said. “The ball is in our court. There’s no rush to do anything. Let’s all sleep on it.”

By the time Mr. Trump retired to the residence for the night, advisers said, he was relieved there had been no casualties and eager for a reset, a path away from a deeper conflict. He posted a reassuring tweet: “All is well!”

All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning.

The next morning Mr. Trump addressed the nation from the White House, and while he excoriated Iran’s “campaign of terror,” he made clear he would not retaliate further.
“Iran appears to be standing down,” he said, without revealing the secret message sent through the Swiss, adding that he was “ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.”
The immediate crisis over, Mr. Trump sent top officials to brief Congress, but the closed-door sessions in a secure facility where lawmakers had to surrender their telephones did little to quell concerns about the justification for the drone strike.
In the House briefing, Mr. Pompeo offered a brief introduction followed by presentations by Ms. Haspel, Mr. Esper, General Milley and Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence. All three offered vague but emphatic assertions of intelligence indicating an imminent threat by General Suleimani. General Milley said the evidence could not be clearer and was the “best intelligence” he had seen during his career.
But they refused to describe it in detail. One lawmaker said the information was no more secret than what could be found on Wikipedia. At one point, General Milley said the intelligence showed discussion by General Suleimani of potential terrorist attacks on three specific dates in late December or early January.

“What were the threats?” several lawmakers in the audience shouted, but General Milley declined to say.

Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times

Credit...Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times

Another lawmaker noted that the three dates General Milley cited were all before the strike on General Suleimani and no attacks actually occurred then.
“What really came across was a sense of disdain and contempt for the legislative branch,” said Representative Gerald E. Connolly, Democrat of Virginia. “They didn’t even pretend to be engaged in information sharing and consultation.”
Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, called the session for senators “probably the worst briefing” in his nine years in office. “We never got to the details,” he said. “Every time we got close, they said, ‘Well, we can’t discuss that here because it’s sensitive.’”
If it was too sensitive for Congress, it was not too sensitive for Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host. In an interview broadcast on Friday, Mr. Trump told her that the threat had been to four American embassies, even as other officials said privately that they did not have concrete evidence of General Suleimani’s targets.

After seven days of saber rattling and fresh deployments, the immediate march to war had ended. But inside the security establishment, few consider the crisis to be over. In the months to come, they expect Iran to regroup and find ways to strike back.
“Suleimani as a person inspired the masses, he was a national icon, he symbolized the struggle,” said Ali Alfoneh, a senior fellow at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington who studies Iran. “But he was also a very small part of a very large organization.”
“Yes, it is decapitated,” he added, “but the organization is not destroyed."
Peter Baker and Julian E. Barnes reported from Washington, Ronen Bergman from Tel Aviv, David D. Kirkpatrick from London, and Alissa J. Rubin from Baghdad. Reporting was contributed by Helene Cooper, Thomas Gibbons-Neff, Lara Jakes, Mark Mazzetti, David E. Sanger, Eric Schmitt, Michael D. Shear, Noah Weiland and Edward Wong from Washington; Farnaz Fassihi and Maggie Haberman from New York; Rukmini Callimachi from Balchik, Bulgaria, and Bucharest, Romania; Adam Nossiter and Constant Méheut from Paris; Steven Erlanger from Brussels; Katrin Bennhold from Berlin; Nick Cumming-Bruce from Geneva; David M. Halbfinger and Isabel Kershner from Jerusalem; Ben Hubbard and Hwaida Saad from Beirut; and Falih Hassan from Baghdad.

Peter Baker is the chief White House correspondent and has covered the last four presidents for The Times and The Washington Post. He also is the author of five books, most recently “Impeachment: An American History.” @peterbakernyt  Facebook
Ronen Bergman is a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, based in Tel Aviv. His latest book is “Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations,” published by Random House. 
David D. Kirkpatrick is an international correspondent based in the London bureau. He was previously the Cairo bureau chief, a Washington correspondent and a national correspondent based in New York. @ddknyt
Julian E. Barnes is a national security reporter based in Washington, covering the intelligence agencies. Before joining The Times in 2018, he wrote about security matters for The Wall Street Journal. @julianbarnes  Facebook
Alissa Johannsen Rubin is the Baghdad Bureau chief for The New York Times.  @Alissanyt
A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: 7 Days in January: Secret Orders, a Deadly Strike and a World on EdgeOrder Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

26 opmerkingen:

  1. Beste Blikkers,

    Ik hoop dat je dit lange NYT artikel leest. Ik vond het interessant.

    Wees aub zo vriendelijk om saillante zaken die je leest, hieronder te vermelden. Mijn korte samenvatting is verre van volledig.

  2. Het artikel heeft als titel: Seven days in january.
    Rings a bell....

    Seven Days in May is a 1964 American political thriller film about a military-political cabal's ... The book was written in late 1961 and into early 1962, during the first year of the Kennedy administration, reflecting some of the events of that era.

  3. Christiaan Triebert, the NY Times’ video expert, who collaborated closely with Gharib to get the story out within hours of the incident, previously worked as a senior investigator at Bellingcat.


    1. Ja Joop,

      ik begin ook steeds meer te vermoeden dat er iets niet klopt.
      Dat stukje Bellingcat-NYTimes dat kun je verwachten.

      En dit is ook nog vrij normaal:
      Turns out that Nariman Gharib, the guy who received the video and credited by the NY Times for submitting it, is a vociferous anti-Iranian government dissident who does not live in Iran.

      Maar het tweede stuk bij Van Houcke is mer opvallend:
      Het filmpje is opgenomen om 6 uur 's morgens ( wie filmt dan de donkere lucht?) in een arme buitenwijk van Teheran .... en wordt dan op de website van de heel rijke jongeren van Teheran geplaatst: jongens die met hun porsches de straten onveilig maken.

      1) Waarom zou die filmer 's nachts filmen?
      2) Waarom zou hij dat filmpje aan zijn 'natuurlijke vijanden' geven ?

      Ergens las ik dat Teheran een man gearresteerd heeft: iemand die een video had gemaakt.

      Ook las ik: NYT heeft film die toont dat er 2 raket inslagen waren.

      Nogmaals wil ik vast stellen: de VS kan in zijn Electronic Warfare elk vliegtuig elk identificatie signaal laten uitzenden, denk ik.

      En: die Kolomoiski heeft er ook al weer iets mee te maken. Wat precies ben ik vergeten.

      Nog iets wat me dwars zit: Overal wordt het verdriet in Canada breed uitgemeten. Maar er waren dan wel flink wat Canadezen aan boord, de meesten waren van Iraanse afkomst.
      Twee echtparen en drie kinderen waren Canadees, meer niet wellicht.

    2. Nou, dat is dan heel erg prettig van jou te vernemen dat jij dat ook vermoed. Dat verzwakt tevens jouw opmerking om mij in het vervolg 'Rijkswet Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid' te noemen,

      Mijn kunde gaat inmiddels zo ver dat ik niet uitsluit dat dat toestel is neergehaald door een F-35, uitgerust met in de zionistische staat zelf ontwikkelde apparatuur, dus niet door het joodse tehuis in Palestina. De zionistische staat is eigendom van de Rothschild bankiersfamilie en Trump zal wellicht een Rothschild zionist zijn.

    3. Deze reactie is verwijderd door een blogbeheerder.

    4. Geen gescheld hier.
      Mopperen kan nog net, mits met mate.
      Napruttelen wordt ook nog even getolereerd.
      Schelden niet.

    5. Zoals het spreekwoord zegt:

      "Blijf met je poten af van onze eigen rot-Joop."

  4. @ Jan

    Stan van Houcke heeft vandaag nog een artikel geplaatst over het neerschieten van vlucht PS752 boven Iran. Het stuk is geschreven door een zekere Joe Quinn en was geplaatst op Sott.net.


    Quinn gaat in op de mogelijkheden en motieven om Iran een verkeersvliegtuig te laten neerschieten. De mogelijkheden hebben betrekking op 'spoofing'als onderdeel van EW. 'Spoofing' betekent', toegespits op de luchtvaart. dat de signalen die vliegtuigen afgegeven aan grondstations worden gehackt om ze een andere identiteit, locatie, snelheid of vliegrichting te geven dan hun feitelijke. De technische standaard van transponders is die van ADS-B. ADS-B transponders ontvangen en zenden signalen uit over open, niet versleutelde, kanalen. Dat maakt ze kwetsbaar voor hacken.

    'In 2012, researchers from the Air Force Institute of Technology showed that a variety of "false injection" attacks can be readily coded on a commercial software-defined radio platform and launched from the ground or air with a cheap antenna. Attacks could cause aircraft to believe a collision is imminent, flood the airspace with hundreds of false transmissions, or prevent reception of legitimate messages.'
    (uit het genoemde artikel op Sott.net)

    Ook al hebben de Iraanse authoriteiten nu schuld bekend en spijt en excuses aangeboden, dan nog blijft er genoeg reden tot scepsis opver de officiele versie van de toedracht. Schuld bekennen en excuses aanbieden is voor hen uiteindelijk wellicht minder schadelijk dan eindeloos getouwtrek a la MH17 over een uitlokking die vrijwel onmogelijk te bewijzen is.

    Het blijft opmerkelijk dat de commandant van een TOR installatie die 9 voorgaande vluchten die een zelfde traject vlogen ongemoeid hun vlucht liet vervolgen, maar nummer tien besloot neer te schieten En ja, de onwaarschijnlijke snelheid en de manier waarop NYT het narratief probeerde neer te zetten is ook op een deja-vu achtige manier verdacht.

  5. @ Dawg,

    Ik heb het artikel van Joe Quinn gelezen want het wordt door Stan geplaatst in hetzelfde blog als dat over die Iraanse dr. die aan de UvA verbonden is.
    Joop gaf al de link:

    Dat 'spoofing' is me te ingewikkeld. Wel begrijp ik dat die Iraanse soldaat gewoon zijn radar een vijandig toestel zag en dus schoot.
    Of zijn computer zag dat vliegtuig en zette de actie in werking.

    Essentieel is dat dit spoofing door de VS of Mossad is uitgevoerd.

    Ik gebruikte in mijn reactie hierboven een later deel van Joe Quincy's artikel: namelijk dat de video was geplaatst op een Instagram account van de rijke Jet Set van Teheran.

    Dàt lijkt me de smoking gun die wijst op een 'interference' (betrokkenheid) van de opponenten van de Iraanse regering.
    VS/Mossad werkten samen met deze jongelui.

    Om een video te plaatsen moet je lid van die club zijn want je hebt de codes nodig.
    En de rijke Iraanse jongeren zijn natuurlijk van nature vrienden van de VS en niet van de Mullahs.

    Als die video - opgenomen in een arme wijk - oprecht was, dan was hij via een ander kanaal op youtube gezet.
    De filmer was volgens mij in een complot betrokken.

    1. Van Information Clearing House. Toestel was te zien op Flight Radar 24 dus moet het zijn transponder(s) hebben aangehad. http://www.niburu.co/images/2020/jan/iran1.png

      Iranian Flight Crash Facts Not Adding Up


    2. De CVS bestanden van de ADS-B meldingen door vlucht PS752 zijn
      downkoadbaar van de site van Flightradar24


      PS752 Data for download


      Bij de hand doen, maar 't niet zijn. Wees geen Eddy.

    3. @ Rootman,
      ik zag jouw reactie van een paar minuten geleden en wilde hem weg halen. Maar hij staat er niet meer.
      Blik zelf had blijkbaar hetzelfde idee.

      Zo gaan we niet beginnen, Rootman.

      Doe net als ik: als oude mannetjes elke dag beginnen te kankeren, negeer het dan zo veel mogelijk.

  6. Onenigheid binnen de Murdoch familie:

    In a long-simmering rift between factions of the Murdoch family over climate change, Rupert’s younger son, James, and his activist wife, Kathryn, are attacking the climate denialism promoted by News Corporation, the global media group, and also by the Fox News Channel overseen by James’ older brother, Lachlan.

    “Kathryn and James’ views on climate are well established and their frustration with some of the News Corp and Fox coverage of the topic is also well known,” a spokesperson for the couple exclusively told The Daily Beast as wildfires rage in Australia.

  7. "British gov secretly funded Reuters in 1960s &1970s at the behest of an anti-Soviet propaganda unit linked to British intelligence &concealed the funding by using the BBC to make the payments, declassified gov docs show"


    Maar dat was natuurlijk alleen in de jaren '60 en '70?

    1. IK heb het artikel op ICH even door google translate gehaald:

      Onafhankelijke media? Wat een grap

      Britse regering heeft in het geheim Reuters in de jaren zestig en zeventig gefinancierd
      Van Joe Concha

      14 januari 2020 "Information Clearing House" -

      De Britse overheid heeft Reuters in de jaren zestig en zeventig in het geheim gefinancierd op aanwijzing van een anti-Sovjet propaganda-organisatie met links naar MI-6, volgens ge-de-classificeerde documenten ( 50 jaar oud) die maandag werden onthuld.

      De overheid gebruikte de BBC om financiering te verbergen bij het doen van betalingen aan de internationale nieuwsgroep.

      "We zijn nu in een positie om een ​​overeenkomst te sluiten die discrete overheidssteun biedt voor Reuters-diensten in het Midden-Oosten en Latijns-Amerika", luidt een in 1969 opgesteld, geheime Britse overheidsdocument getiteld "Financiering van Reuters door HMG" ofwel de regering van Hare Majesteits Regering.
      Het document werd vorig jaar vrijgegeven.

      "De belangen van HMG moeten goed worden gediend door de nieuwe regeling," gaat het verder.
      Een woordvoerder van Reuters zei maandag in een verklaring dat het gebruikelijk was dat nieuwsorganisaties destijds een vorm van overheidssubsidie ​​ontvingen.

      "Veel nieuwsorganisaties ontvingen na de Tweede Wereldoorlog een vorm van overheidssubsidie", aldus woordvoerder David Crundwell van Reuters.

      "Maar de regeling in 1969 was niet in overeenstemming met onze Trust Principles en we zouden dit vandaag niet doen," ging hij verder.
      Reuters Trust Principles, opgericht in 1984, "is toegewijd aan het handhaven van de Trust Principles en aan het behoud van de onafhankelijkheid, integriteit en vrijheid van vooringenomenheid bij het verzamelen en verspreiden van informatie en nieuws", aldus de website van het bedrijf.
      Reuters werd opgericht in 1851. Het moederbedrijf, Thompson Reuters, heeft wereldwijd meer dan 25.000 mensen in dienst.
      De BBC haalde een soortgelijk charter aan met betrekking tot zijn redactionele onafhankelijkheid.
      "Het BBC-charter garandeert redactionele onafhankelijkheid, ongeacht of de financiering afkomstig is van de Britse overheid, de licentievergoeding of commerciële bronnen," zei een woordvoerder van de BBC maandag.

      Dat is wel lachen met die BBC woordvoerders ! (JV)

    2. Dit is een van de antwoorden op Doornbos:


    3. In feite dus hetzelfde waar Dries van Langenhoven het over had bij Jensen.

  8. TIP:
    De strijd. De arbeidersvrouwen. Seizoen 1 aflevering 6.

    Helemaal perfecte tv.
    Bijna zitten huilen. (Ik raakt geemotioneerd over de emancipatie strijd. Maar tegelijk moet ik zeggen dat die Identity Politics me misselijk maakt. Opmerkelijk, nietwaar. De ene strijd waas echt, de andere fake. )

  9. TIP:

    Grey Zone: Aaron Matté interviewt kolonel Wilkerson.
    Fantastische kerel die en passant heel goede onthullingen doet.
    duurt 15 min.
    Ik maak er misschien nog een blog over. Wie schrijft een korte ssamenvatting? Plaats hem als reactie en ik maak een blogje.

    Ex-Bush official: OPCW's Syria cover-up recalls Iraq war lies

  10. Het NYT stuk lijkt op desinformatie. De bettrokkenheid van israel wordt achterwege gelaten en zij lijken een slachtoffer, toch zijn zij de organisator van 40 jaar oorlog met iran en de reden voor de huidige trump politiek. De verkiezingen in israel zijn de reden waarom het nu escaleert en dat wordt pas minder na de verkiezing in de vs. Trump en Bibi zullen bij escalatie bij elk scenario als winnaar weglopen, allleen als de van de wereld nu eindelijk er tegenin durft te gaan en een rode lijn ttrekt, zal hij aan presttige verliezen, maar de kans daarop is minimaal.

    1. In elk geval dank dat je het hele stuk hebt gelezen, Mark.

      Ik vond dat er desondanks toch wel enkele zaken duidelijk werden: - Dat het nooit opzet is geweest ban Kataaib Hezbollah om iemand te doden.

      De vijf schrijvers hebben tientallen insiders gesproken.
      In dit artikel lees je hoe deze moord tot stand kwam. Het lijkt bijna litterair beschreven.
      De aanslagen door Iran.
      Het bedenken vaan diverse vergeldings-mogelijkheden.
      Dat men uiteindelijk op Soleimani uit komt.
      Dat Trump een eis stelt: Pas als hij Amerikanen heeft gedood.
      ( Zou mr Hamid in Amerika zijn geboren? Of heeft hij alleen maar zijn ziel aan de VS verkocht ?)
      Hoe men afweegt in welk land die aanslag dan zou moeten gebeuren.
      Dat Nasrallah ( Libanon) al wist dat die moord er aanzat te komen omdat Soleimani zo veel in de westers media werd genoemd.
      Dat Soleimani zei: Ik vind het prima als ik een martelaar word.

      Etc etc.

      Ja, de rol van Israel wordt er uit geschreven, maar daar zijn we aan gewend.

  11. Leuke satire op UNZ:

    So, 2020 is off to an exciting start. [.....]

    It started in the Middle East, of course, when Donald Trump (a “Russian-asset”) ordered the murder of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani outside the Baghdad Airport, presumably after clearing it with Putin, which, given Iran and Russia’s relationship, doesn’t really make much sense.

    But whatever. According to the U.S. government and the corporate media, Soleimani was a “terrorist,” who had been working with Assad (another “terrorist”) to destroy ISIS (who are also “terrorists”) and elements of Al-Qaeda (who used to be “terrorists”) with the support of the Russians (who are kind of “terrorists”) and doing all sorts of other unspecified but allegedly imminent “terrorist” things.

    Apparently, Soleimani had flown to Baghdad on a secret commercial “terrorist” flight and was on his way to some kind of covert “terrorist” diplomatic meeting to respond to a de-escalation proposal from Saudi Arabia (who are definitely not “terrorists”) when the U.S. military preventatively murdered him with a General Atomics Aeronautical Systems MQ-9B Reaper drone.

    Iran (officially a “terrorist” country since January 1979, when they overthrew the brutal Western puppet that the CIA and MI6 had installed as their “Shah” in 1953, after they regime-changed the Iranian prime minister, after he nationalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, later to be known as British Petroleum) reacted to the preventative murder of their “terrorist” general like a bunch of “terrorists.”

    Etc Etc.