As Tensions With Iran Escalated, Trump Opted for Most Extreme Measure
In the chaotic days leading to the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s most powerful commander, top American military officials put the option of killing him — which they viewed as the most extreme response to recent Iranian-led violence in Iraq — on the menu they presented to President Trump.
They didn’t think he would take it. In the wars waged since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents to make other possibilities appear more palatable.
After initially rejecting the Suleimani option on Dec. 28 and authorizing airstrikes on an Iranian-backed Shia militia group instead, a few days later Mr. Trump watched, fuming, as television reports showed Iranian-backed attacks on the American Embassy in Baghdad, according to Defense Department and administration officials.
By late Thursday, the president had gone for the extreme option. Top Pentagon officials were stunned.
Mr. Trump made the decision, senior officials said on Saturday, despite disputes in the administration about the significance of what some officials said was a new stream of intelligence that warned of threats to American embassies, consulates and military personnel in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. General Suleimani had just completed a tour of his forces in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, and was planning an “imminent” attack that could claim hundreds of lives, those officials said.
“Days, weeks,” Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Friday, when asked how imminent any attacks could be, without offering more detail other than to say that new information about unspecified plotting was “clear and unambiguous.”
But some officials voiced private skepticism about the rationale for a strike on General Suleimani, who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American troops over the years. According to one United States official, the new intelligence indicated “a normal Monday in the Middle East” — Dec. 30 — and General Suleimani’s travels amounted to “business as usual.”
That official described the intelligence as thin and said that General Suleimani’s attack was not imminent because of communications the United States had between Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and General Suleimani showing that the ayatollah had not yet approved any plans by the general for an attack. The ayatollah, according to the communications, had asked General Suleimani to come to Tehran for further discussions at least a week before his death.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence were two of the most hawkish voices arguing for a response to Iranian aggression, according to administration officials. Mr. Pence’s office helped run herd on meetings and conference calls held by officials in the run-up to the strike.
Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and General Milley declined to comment for this article, but General Milley’s spokeswoman, Col. DeDe Halfhill, said, without elaborating, that “some of the characterizations being asserted by other sources are false” and that she would not discuss conversations between General Milley and the president.
The fallout from Mr. Trump’s targeted killing is now underway. On Saturday in Iraq, the American military was on alert as tens of thousands of pro-Iranian fighters marched through the streets of Baghdad and calls accelerated to eject the United States from the country. United States Central Command, which oversees American military operations in the Middle East, said there were two rocket attacks near Iraqi bases that host American troops, but no one was injured.
In Iran, the ayatollah vowed “forceful revenge” as the country mourned the death of General Suleimani.
In Palm Beach, Fla., Mr. Trump lashed back, promising to strike 52 sites across Iran — representing the number of American hostages taken by Iran in 1979 — if Iran attacked Americans or American interests. On Saturday night, Mr. Trump warned on Twitter that some sites were “at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD.”
The president issued those warnings after American spy agencies on Saturday detected that Iranian ballistic missile units across the country had gone to a heightened state of readiness, a United States official said on Saturday night.
Other officials said it was unclear whether Iran was dispersing its ballistic missile units — the heart of the Iranian military — to avoid American attack, or was mobilizing the units for a major strike against American targets or allies in the region in retaliation for General Suleimani’s death.
and you were not fuming? you were ok with that? seriously?
after benghazi hillary said it is more important to figure out why they did it than to bring them to justice.
is this the appropriate strategy?
yepp trump fuked up.
he should have just blamed the attack of our embassy on a movie.
and then everything would have been peachy... LOL
all liberal bs starts with a false premise and there it is.
Here is an IQ TEST I found online. multiple choice - pick one.
which of the following solutions is most extreme?
You dont understand the material in the news story.
The killing of Gen. Sulemani was the most extreme option on the list that was presented to Trump as a response to the storming of the US embassy in Baghdad.
nuking Iran , etc, was not on that list.
The false premise is all yours.
It was just him and few flunkies that got vaporized. Trumps action are not aimed at the Iranian people, most of whom applaud this action.
I understood every word. I also know bs when I see it.
and that, is bs john, all options are always on the table.
Evidently you are not capable of, or are not willing to discuss the seeded article.
It is clear what "most extreme option" means in this seed. It is not "nuking" or invading Iran.
discussing an article and agreeing with it are two different things john.
you simply can not defend the articles bs.
You would've had a great job with Johnny Carson as his back-up "Amazing Karnak" John.
You have absolutely no idea WHAT options were on the table and what options are still available.
Quit talking like you know stuff - especially stuff about how the U.S. handles threats of any sort. You don't.
The New York Times article says that trump chose the most extreme option. Or do you prefer we believe whatever Sean Hannity or Alex Jones says?
Trump defenders run around like chickens with their heads cut off and then try to blame "liberals" or the media, Blame trump for god's sake. He is the one misleading you every day.
the nyt said... and everyone should just believe them... LOL
no seriously... too funny
you need more gas in your light.
cheers
And what if he did choose the most extreme option?
That is why they are called OPTIONS. They are on the table. If you aren't ever going to use the "most extreme option", then it really is NOT an option at all.
I don't get why Americans are pissed that we took out some terrorists.
I just don't fucking get why that would piss any AMERICANS off.
Doing nothing resulted in American deaths, and would have continued to result in American deaths. Oh, the horror of DOING SOMETHING about it!
SMMFH at idiots pissed over this.
nuking Iran , etc, was not on that list
Want to bet that it is on a separate list of Trump's?
Maybe we should have given Iran billions of dollars and a path to a nuke. Then they’d love us for sure,,right?
That was chamberlain’s mistake. He was too tough on hitler. Always give terrorists what they want and be thankful they didn’t kill more people. Maybe we should declare the US an Islamic republic and hope that maybe then iran will stop killing Americans.
Why does it seem like almost half of America is pissed that we took out a terrorist?
No, we do NOT know all the ramifications of his death. No, we do NOT know for sure how Iran will respond.
However, we DO know what doing nothing was accomplishing. Suliemani's track record is complete with the blood of Americans. We know for a FACT that he planned, orchestrated, financed, and plotted many attacks on US interests, resulting in the deaths of hundreds if not thousands.
I am glad our President found it reprehensible that this man was allowed to flourish for years with nary so much as a scratch. I am glad we had a President with some fucking balls.
I will not mourn the asshole's death.
they're not.... LOL "online" only makes it look that way.
online, the butthurt left always yells the loudest.
I was watching MSNBC for kicks the other night when the attack happened. It was pretty funny seeing all the Democratic politicians claiming that the dude was a "real bad guy that deserved it" but were so worried about what Iran might do. The news people were aghast that we had actually dared to kill a known terrorist.
None of the news people offered a single alternative. So I suppose their plan was to let him live and continue killing Americans.
its all fairly simple...
so yepp. the left would not have punished the people responsible.
they would have only suggested aromatherapy and a nice chat about why they attacked our embassy. so we don't do whatever pissed them off again.