Month: January 2020

Before the U.S. Government killed Qassem Soleimani, they killed his good friend Imad Mughniyeh. I know this because for some reason practically everyone with some knowledge of Mughniyeh’s 2008 death on the streets of Damascus decided to tell journalist Jeff Stein about the sordid details in 2015. This was a bit startling because Mughniyeh was murdered with a specially crafted bomb designed by the CIA’s Office of Technical Services.

“It went from being a traditional car bomb, with a load of C-4 or Semtex or something packed into car chassis, into a very narrowly focused, very tailored weapon, which turned into basically a very large claymore mine, if you will, a shaped charge” hidden in the center of a rear tire mounted on the back of a Toyota or Mitsubishi SUV, a source said. “It was designed to throw out everything in a specific direction.”

They parked the car in front of Muhgniyeh’s apartment and waited months for him to walk past it alone with no nearby bystanders. When the opportunity finally arrived, the results were exactly what they were looking for:

Finally, on the night of February 12, 2008, after two months of round-the-clock surveillance, they caught Mugniyah alone.

“They made a positive ID. Click. One, one thousand; two, one thousand…ka-boom. It separated Mr. Mugniyah’s arms, legs, and head from the remainder of his torso, which was catapulted about 50 feet through a window,” the participant said. “It worked exactly like it was supposed to.”

Stein was chosen to tell us about this because he’s trusted by the CIA. A member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, Stein earned a Bronze Star in Vietnam. Yet, he’s written articles that were probably not welcomed at CIA headquarters. In particular, I am thinking of the piece he wrote just before the 9/11 attacks on Claire George’s eight-year campaign to destroy the life of a freelance journalist named Janice Pottker.

If you vaguely remember the name Claire George, it’s probably because he “retired” as Deputy Director of Operations at the CIA after he was caught lying to Congress about the Iran-Contra affair. Eventually, he was found guilty on two counts of making false statements. He was among the key Iran-Contra figures President George H.W. Bush pardoned on Christmas Eve in 1992.

Even before he was pardoned, however, he had taken a job as a “consultant” for the Ringling Bros. circus, and it was in that role that he oversaw a plot to prevent Ms. Pottker from writing a book on the circus’s treatment of animals and children entertainers.  If you really want to go down a rabbit hole, I suggest you start looking into this, for the shits and giggles if nothing else.

Anyway, Claire George was at once stationed in Beirut which was the venue for Imad Mughniyeh’s most spectacular and horrific terrorist activities. These would be, specifically, the 1983 bombings of the U.S. Embassy and Marine Barracks, and the 1984 kidnapping and extensive torture of the CIA’s station chief William Buckley. The CIA held a bit of a grudge about this, for understandable reasons:

In a video taken approximately seven months after the kidnapping, [Buckley’s] appearance was described as follows:

Buckley was close to a gibbering wretch. His words were often incoherent; he slobbered and drooled and, most unnerving of all, he would suddenly scream in terror, his eyes rolling helplessly and his body shaking. The CIA consensus was that he would be blindfolded and chained at the ankles and wrists and kept in a cell little bigger than a coffin.

Buckley died in 1985, probably of a heart attack. Claire George died in 2008, the same year that the CIA separated Mughniyeh’s head, arms and legs from his torso. So it goes.

While he lived, Mughniyah didn’t content himself with operating in Lebanon, however. He was also involved in the 1983 bombings in Kuwait, which you may not remember. The man he allegedly put in charge of that operation died in the same drone strikes that killed Qassem Soleimani at the Baghdad Airport.

Interestingly, the Kuwaitis arrested 17 people in connection to the 1983 bombings and the primary reason Hezbollah in Lebanon began kidnapping Americans in the mid-1980’s was to trade them for the release of these 17 prisoners. It was Ronald Reagan’s desperation to secure release of these hostages that led him to approve weapons sales to Iran, leading to the Iran-Contra scandal that ruined Claire George’s career. In the end, the 17 prisoners escaped when Iraq invaded Kuwait and made their way back to Iran.

All of this demonstrates clearly, I believe, that one act of violence leads to another, and the what we’re seeing go on now is inextricably connected to things that happened decades ago. The U.S. government took out Mughniyah in 2008, and they took out his long-time collaborators in 2020. But this all ties back to 1983. And the bombings in 1983 were a response to the U.S. green-lighting the Likud government in Israeli’s decision to invade and occupy Lebanon in 1982.

Others will want to go further back, to Operation Ajax, the CIA’s 1953 plot to reinstall the Shah in power in Tehran.

However you want to subdivide the history, there seems to be no end to the resulting violence and misery. Some on each side of the conflict may celebrate when a new character in the saga meets their demise, but it won’t end the cycle.

At some point, peacemakers need to get the upper hand and put a stop to this endless nightmare.

I’m glad there are some western journalists in Tehran who are talking to people on the street, but I fear the result is a distorted picture. If you wanted to get a good picture of the mood of America, you wouldn’t do too well by talking only to whomever you happened to come across in Central Park. But that’s basically what was done for this Bloomberg piece:

“It’s a nerve-racking situation that only adds to the likelihood of more unforeseen circumstances,” said Hossein, 44, sitting on a park bench in central Tehran with a newspaper. “We’re in a tinderbox ready to explode. I’m afraid of a chain of aggressive reactions that will throw the political and economic situation into further chaos and uncertainty.”

…By November, the bloodiest protests since the 1979 revolution plunged the country into a state of heightened security as authorities, unable to contain the unrest, switched-off access to the internet and launched a crackdown on dissent that killed some 304 people within several days, according to the London-based Amnesty International.

“How do they expect people to rally behind them and support their cause for vengeance when they beat the same people on the streets and cut their internet just a few weeks ago?” said Atena, 30. She expects action to avenge Soleimani. “I don’t think they should or will stay silent, but I don’t want to be part of the drama because this is their loss, not mine.”

Public opinion in Tehran produces words like “likelihood,”unforeseen,” and “drama.” But the strongest supporters of the Islamic regime come from a different socioeconomic background.

It’s probably true that Iranians, as a whole, are getting restless as the country labors under severe sanctions, inflation and international isolation. But notice that even urbane Atena thinks the government should not stay silent about the assassination of Qassem Soleimani. Here is another similar example, from the same article:

“The killing of an Iranian general by a foreign government is deplorable and unforgivable and I hope that Iran will respond with tact and patience just the way they have done so far,” said Ali, 32, an economic graduate hovering near a Tehran bookstore. “But I’m scared of the breakout of a war. The United States has crossed a line that cannot be uncrossed.”

Ali is fearful and doesn’t want war, but he still sees the assassination as an unforgivable act. The responses from people who aren’t hovering near college book stores are probably a touch more bellicose.

Americans shouldn’t be confused or misled about how ordinary Iranians feel about the death of Soleimani. Whether they liked the man or not, they agree that America crossed a line and that it demands some kind of response. I don’t think it helps Americans understand the situation to read articles that downplay this fact or that suggest that the regime is so unpopular that the people don’t really care about the loss of its key enforcer.

Had Soleimani been slain a year ago, nationalist fervor may have been far more pronounced. Iranians, though, are exhausted. People routinely evoke memories of the eight-year war with Iraq and its subsequent food rationing, and ask whether their sons will soon be called-up to enlist.

I don’t think the intention of this piece is to serve as propaganda for regime change, but it could serve that purpose. The truth is quite different. The assassination reduced internal pressure on the regime and has helped them bind the country together again at a time when their grip on power was slipping. Even dissidents who might look to America for help are generally outraged by this action and recognize that national pride demands some kind of response.

We should not be confused about this or have some false hope that the regime is about to fall. The Iranians may not want war with a more powerful adversary, but they will fight.

Hello again painting fans.

This week I will be continuing with the painting of Wilderstein. The photo that I’m using (My own from a recent visit just a few weeks ago.) is seen directly below.

I’ll be using my usual acrylic paints on a 5×7 inch canvas.

When last seen the painting appears as it does in the photo seen directly below.

Since that time I have continued to work on the painting.

Unfortunately I had little time to work on the painting this week, but there are a few changes. You’ll have to look closely. Note that the shadow has been brought half way around the tower. I have changed the top accordingly. That’s about it for now. Much more next week.

The current state of the painting is seen in the photo directly below.

I’ll have more progress to show you next week. See you then.

Everyone, including myself, is justifiably focused today on developments in Iraq and Iran, but this might be almost as significant:

A federal judge on Friday allowed a Rudy Giuliani associate indicted on campaign finance charges to turn over documents to Congress as part of the impeachment proceeding against President Donald Trump.

U.S. District Court Judge Paul Oetken granted Lev Parnas’ request to turn over to the House intelligence committee documents and data seized by federal investigators when Parnas was arrested in October.

Parnas’ attorney said in a court filing he expected to receive the materials from the U.S. Justice Department this week.

Parnas has already turned over documents that were in his possession, but he couldn’t turn over materials that had been seized by the Feds. No doubt, the most incriminating stuff will now be delivered to Adam Schiff next week. I’ve said from the beginning that if Trump is going to go down, it will be because of what Giuliani was doing with Parnas, Igor Fruman and Dmytro Firtash. I don’t know if the information will be damning enough to convince Republican senators to reconsider their obstinate defense of the president, but it’s not going to be helpful to their cause.

I read Dexter Filkins’s opus on Qassem Suleimani when it was published in The New Yorker in September 2013. I believe that was the point when I first understood the breadth of his accomplishment. I had known of Suleimani prior to that, and I was aware that he was extraordinarily dangerous and powerful. It was only after reading Filkins that I realized that Suleimani probably had more responsibility for Iran’s geo-strategic reach than Iran’s Supreme Leader or any other strategist in their government.

It was also probably that article that informed me of the reverence with which Suleimani was held by his followers, as well as ordinary Iranians, and even the spies and military leaders responsible for facing him down and limiting his effectiveness.

He was kind of the man who must be killed but was too powerful and charismatic to kill. Characterized as “a living martyr” by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Suleimani would become a religious figure if actually martyred. His network of supporters had metastasized across the region and even the globe, and they were trained in asymmetrical warfare. Everyone was terrified of him in the Middle East, including the Israelis.

Suleimani’s fate appears to have been sealed when Iran-backed militias broke into the American Embassy in Baghdad, lit fires and scrawled pro-Suleimani and anti-American graffiti on the walls. It was an inopportune time for the Iranian general and spymaster to visit the Baghdad Airport, and he paid for his miscalculation with his life.

If America wanted to send the strongest possible message that we won’t tolerate another Iranian Hostage Crisis, the assassination of Suleimani certainly accomplished that. In this limited sense, I’m sympathetic to the thinking behind this extreme action. But this is the furthest thing from a one-off warning. It’s a step designed to cause an escalation that will lead to war. If you have any doubt about this, look at what the most longstanding American advocate of regime change in Teheran had to say about it:

Congratulations to all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani. Long in the making, this was a decisive blow against Iran's malign Quds Force activities worldwide. Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran.

— John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) January 3, 2020

We tend to exaggerate the importance of terrorist leaders, falsely suggesting that they are irreplaceable. In this case, Suleimani’s singular genius was such that it’s probably true. This won’t make the world a safer place in the short term, however. If anything, Suleimani’s Quds Force is more dangerous without his savvy and often restrained leadership. They are just as lethal as they were with Suleimani alive, but more likely to be used in reckless ways that will escalate things to an inevitable final showdown with the Iranian regime.

Iran will feel duty-bound to exact revenge, and a commensurate level of revenge would involve assassinating a major American leader, such as a commanding general or member of Trump’s cabinet. If they feel that this would be suicidal, they will opt for lesser targets with more plausible deniability.

In the short term, they will try to force the Iraqi government to ask for the removal of all American troops. They will surely contemplate actions in the region against allies and soft targets that prudence prevented them from considering in the past. Simple national pride will lead them to take risks that were previously unimaginable.

Suleimani’s reach probably extends to the American homeland, too, so we shouldn’t rule out that reprisals will be felt here, although that would make it very easy for people like John Bolton to rally the nation to a war that might not otherwise have broad public support. The problem is, hardliners in Iran might not care.

For the same reason, Americans abroad should not feel safe and air travel will remain risky into the indefinite future.

This is a tremendous amount of risk and a ridiculously momentous decision to take without first consulting leaders in Congress or our close allies. It’s not like Suleimani was some illusive target that might disappear for another decade if not killed when the opportunity arose. He traveled openly in the region, usually unarmed.

Things will almost definitely escalate out of control now, but the international community should still step in to do what they can to restrain the Iranians and to convince America to avoid more provocative actions. Potentially millions of lives are at stake, as well as the health of the global economy.

With this decision, Trump has removed the solitary argument in his favor, which was that he was reticent to wage more war in the Middle East and Central Asia. He just created an almost unimaginable amount of danger for Americans and our allies, and that’s precisely what a lot of his supporters did not want.

Now we’re forced to mitigate these dangers in the midst of an impeachment trial that would remove our leader from office as unfit. Perhaps that played into this decision as well.

Hi photo lovers.

Happy New Year! This is an intermission of sorts. I was going through some of my archives and spotting favorite photos from last year. This is arguably near the top of my list. Just like the way it turned out. I took this one at an outdoor cafe in Rotterdam in early July. It was a lovely early evening and I just loved the lighting.

I am still using my same equipment, and am no professional. If you are an avid photographer, regardless of your skills and professional experience, you are in good company here.

I have been using an LG v40 ThinQ for the last year. It seems to serve me well, now going on its second year. This series of posts is in honor of a number of our ancestors. At one point, there were some seriously great photographers who graced Booman Tribune with their work. They are all now long gone. I am the one who carries the torch. I keep this going because I know that one day I too will be gone, and I really want the work that was started long ago to continue, rather than fade away with me. If I see that I am able to incite a few others to fill posts like these with photos, then I will be truly grateful. In the meantime, enjoy the photos, and I am sure between Booman and myself we can pass along quite a bit of knowledge about the photo flog series from its inception back during the Booman Tribune days.

Since this post usually runs only a day, I will likely keep it up for a while. Please share your work. I am convinced that us amateurs are extremely talented. You will get nothing but love and support here. I mean that. Also, when I say that you don’t have to be a photography pro, I mean that as well. I am an amateur. This is my hobby. This is my passion. I keep these posts going only because they are a passion. If they were not, I would have given up a long time ago. My preference is to never give up.

Peace.

The White House’s efforts to stonewall the investigation of their hold on military assistance to Ukraine has officially crumbled. The House of Representatives made enough progress in their investigation to fully justify an article of impeachment, but the obstruction they faced (which serves as the basis for the second article) prevented them for hearing from many key witnesses or even of learning of some people’s role until it was too late to call them as witnesses.

Among these is Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Elaine McCusker who serves as the Pentagon’s comptroller. She was the point person at the Defense Department for executing the hold, and she received her instructions from Michael Duffey, the associate director of national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget. In late October, the House did subpoena Mr. Duffey along with his boss, OMB director Russ Voight. House investigators did not then know that Ms. McCusker was privy to much of the information they sought. Duffey defied the subpoena in violation of the law and did not appear for a scheduled deposition in early November.

Congress was thus denied key documentary evidence and witness testimony from Duffey and McCusker, but the whole world can now read much of their correspondence. This is the result of two developments. First, the Center for Public Integrity was victorious in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in getting access to the documents. Unfortunately, the Justice Department redacted almost all the incriminating information the documents contained. However, on Thursday, Kate Brannen of Just Security published many un-redacted portions of the email correspondence between Duffey and McCusker.

It’s clear why someone leaked the un-redacted documents to Brannen. They are highly relevant to the upcoming Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Since they are now in the public record, they can presumably be introduced at that trial by the House managers responsible for prosecuting the case. But emails are no substitute for direct testimony, and both Duffey and McCusker should both be deposed now and should both be available to testify.

Mitch McConnell does not want to allow witnesses at the Senate trial, but this leak will put added pressure on him and the rest of the Republican caucus.

As Brannen ably demonstrates in her article, Duffey and McCusker sparred with each other during the entirety of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine. Duffey was struggling to execute a direction from President Trump not to allow the release of the funds despite the risk that it would cause an illegal failure to provide the aid before the conclusion of the fiscal year on September 30th. McCusker was responsible for making sure the aid was ready to go at a moment’s notice, but increasingly concerned both that Congress needed to be formally advised and that she would not have enough time to fully disperse the funds.

Their correspondence makes clear the president was solely responsible for the hold and that the Pentagon had grave concerns about its legality. Duffey valiantly attempts to implement the president’s instructions without violating the law and without Congress or the public learning of it, but his task is impossible. McCusker does her best to comply with her instructions, but ultimately has to defend the Pentagon’s legal interests.

This culminates with McCusker telling Duffey on September 9 via email that she can no longer meet the September 30 deadline, and Duffey responding by promising to put responsibility for this failure squarely on McCusker’s shoulders.

Duffey, adding OMB and Pentagon lawyers to the recipients list, and in a formal and lengthy letter that was quite different from the way he’d addressed McCusker all summer, chastised her and the Defense Department for dropping the ball, saying that if and when the hold is lifted, and DOD finds itself unable to obligate the funding, it would be DOD’s fault.

“As you know, the President wanted a policy process run to determine the best use of these funds, and he specifically mentioned this to the SecDef the previous week. OMB developed a footnote authorizing DoD to proceed with all processes necessary to obligate funds. If you have not taken these steps, that is contrary to OMB’s direction and was your decision not to proceed. If you are unable to obligate the funds, it will have been DoD’s decision that cause any impoundment of funds.”

Essentially: You guys screwed up. Not us.

McCusker responded:

“You can’t be serious. I am speechless.”

As these two government officials seek to protect themselves and their departments, what is easily lost is that none of this would have happened without the president’s decision to run an extortion scheme on the president of Ukraine.

The testimony of Duffey and McCusker is needed not because we really care which of them was to blame, but because neither of them were to blame. The president was committing an illegal act and it fell to them to make it legal for as long as they could. It’s not clear that either of them had any understanding of why the president wanted the hold. If they had know it was because he wanted Ukraine to blame themselves for Russia’s hack of the Democratic National Headquarters, they might have had to consider resigning in protest. But who can imagine a president that indebted to Vladimir Putin?

With the publication of these documents, we now have a much clearer picture of how the president’s plot unfolded in the Pentagon and OMB, and that needs to be a part of the evidentiary case at trial. No excuses.

So let’s ring in the new year! It’s not every day you get to start the new year and decade off with a simple blog post, but here it is.

If there is a theme these next several days it will be something of the best of the 2010s, as we saw them. I was quite pleased with the quality of recording artists – especially indie artists – over the past decade. Sharon Van Etten is one. This track, Comeback Kid, is from her most recent album. She’s also currently on tour. Her style is definitely her own. She’s a singer-songwriter who has always added some electronic elements to her songs. This past year, she really decided to emphasize the electronic. In some ways it makes her songs reminiscent of the mid-1980s. In unplugged settings, her new songs hold up very nicely.

A bar tender is available, and we have plenty of music to select from. Happy New Year.

Cheers!