Posted on 01/08/2020 9:47:51 AM PST by ConservativeMan55
“But Iran can no longer afford these proxies he commanded.
They work for money and Iran’s broke.”
Changes nothing about what the Mullahs thought and felt about the Quds Force general. He was very creative at building their networks across the Middle East and likely got for more, per dollar, for whatever they spent than we do, in terms of support within populations across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere.
I think “set up” is too strong.
But he wasn’t of near the value he used to be to them.
And was a distinct liability.
So, at least, it wasn’t as much of a risk to take him out as it had been.
Plausible.
“But he wasn’t of near the value he used to be to them.
And was a distinct liability.”
1. I don’t know how he was a liability to them.
2. Expansion and extension of the Mullah’s agenda across the Middle East has increasingly made a working military alliance relationship with Russia, in Syria and in sharing of military intelligence on U.S. in the Middle East. The Quds Force general was THE KEY component in the operational intersections between Iran and the Russians - he made their joint objectives work. He had in the last few years become MORE valuable to the Mullahs and valuable as a partner to Russia as well.
We got a “twofer” when we took him out. Relationships are vary important in the alliances of convenience the Mullahs and the Russians have. It will take time to rebuild relationships and trust between the Mullah’s new Quds Force commander (a “safe” choice, not a bold choice) and the Russians and the Iraqi Militias supported by Iran. That is why the Mullahs’ military response was so weak. It will take some time for the new Quds Force general to get his command up to speed.
I was thinking along the lines of when Fidel Castro sent Che Guevara to Bolivia to get him out of the way.
More likely was that the General was the equivalent of Reinhard Heydrich.
An interesting notion but doubtful. Use that idea for a novel, you might be able to sell the movie rights.
#1, I don’t believe Iran can afford to maintain what he’d built, nor to expand it.
Russia is no longer a comrade in Syria but a competitor for spoils. Suley was no good to them anymore.
He’d done his job and was no longer wanted by anyone.
Hitler told Himmler, that if anything happened to Heydrich, Himmler wouldn’t live 24 hours afterwards. Heydrich made a lot of enemies within the SS, I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody knew of the plot to kill him, but didn’t do anything about it.
I think a more likely theory would be the Deep State setting Sollemini up in a desperate attempt to get Trump to "start a war".
That said, I think it's most likely that it is as it appears.
Not likely, if the Iranians were going to take him out... they could have done it themselves... They don’t need the US to do it. Yes he was a powerful guy, but he could have easily disappeared in some other way.
Besides if it had been planned a better path of succession would have been set up before hand.
So, I highly doubt your scenario.
“He’d done his job and was no longer wanted by anyone.”
I disagree totally with your assessment.
I heard this on the radio this morning, as speculation by a caller. After some thought, it actually seems somewhat plausible. Each side wins (well, not General Salami, but no one GAF about him): Iran’s leaders get rid of a potential problem child/rival, plus they get to huff and puff about how tough they are with the Great Satan, to try to stave off revolution; Trump actually gets rid of one of Satan’s minions, and looks great in the process. Plus, this cooperation (as quiet as it is) could actually lead to some reasonably fruitful discussions and actions in the future.
Of course, I don’t think that Trump or anyone else actually trusts Iran, but you take your progress and your gains wherever and whenever you can. A side benefit to Trump is that the Dems once again reinforce their image as the Fifth Column within our nation - they haven’t yet met the anti-American dictator/thug that they don’t like...and people notice this.
Maybe future events will change our assessments.
Maybe not LOL!
Thanks for the discussion.
Stalin had a lot of his generals murdered or sent to the Gulag, and they appeared to be nothing but loyal to the regime and the country. One never knows about the machinations going on behind the scenes, or about who has gone over the edge with paranoia.
The analogy has no current knowledge on which to assume the Mullahs and Stalin are operating similarly when it comes to experienced loyal officials. Operating similarly when it comes to domestic opposition, yes.
Didn’t you see the leader of the country shedding those tears at the news?
I know hollywood loves him, but doubt he could pull off that performance. Maybe somebody’s down below under the table pulling his pubic hairs out one at a time to make him cry.
Possible. But when your really think about it they’d have to have a few things to make it really possible:
1. Reliable knowledge of the general’s movements right down to the minute.
2. A secure back-channel on which to communicate the above travel plans.
3. A pre-established understanding that the United State would act on such intelligence and attack the general & his entourage.
Are all 3 of those thing likely? Probably not.
Punky attacked our embassy. Punky got punked.
Reynold down 4.25
The left forgets where who was educated?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.