Iran issues arrest warrant for Trump over drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani

Iranian Monitor - I seem to recall some kind of treachery by the US, in that we knew Soleimani was going to the Saudis with a peace deal, and we agreed with it, and then killed him. Am I right?

It reminds me of the treachery with Gadaffi, and how we told Russia that he would not be killed. Medvedev was president and fell for it, and so we turned the no fly zone, into a let's bomb them to kingdom come zone. Medvedev lost the presidency because of it, and Putin became president again.

 

Interesting point -and perhaps his staff as well - and anyone else they wish to target - like Solimani was targeted
Maybe China will start arresting folks for the arrest of the Huawei exec - oh sorry .. they have already done this - tit for tat.

Perhaps tit for tat with the US is now the bar - and we just haven't realized it yet !? So we better be careful where we set that bar - because what we do to others - they may start doing to us - and when that dam breaks ... we want better rules to be in place - as "do as we say not as we do" will no longer have clout.

 

Somewhat. Not entirely.

Soleimani went to Iraq to discuss with the Iraqi government their plan (the plan by the Ireqi government) to act as intermediaries between Iran and Saudi Arabia regarding the conflict in Yemen. The Iraqis were interested in playing that role, because they wanted to be spared the consequences of the "rivalry" associated with the Iran-Saudi rift. The Saudis take their cue from Washington and were not entirely opposed and Trump had even given his 'green light' to the Iraqis on this move. In that context, Soleimani was actually also going to Iraq to help use his influence to control some of the passions of the Iraqi groups who were livid from certain attacks against their units by the US and Israel.

He was assassinated in cold blood, when his guards were down. When he expected it least, which made him less mindful of the typical protocols he follows when he travels. He was assassinated by forces who are opposed to any 'peace' and are interested in pushing for war. Those forces are found, ultimately, in their most unapologetic incarnation, among the neocons and Israelis. Trump was pushed into this by them, when he needed their support in the impending impeachment fight, and without probably realizing what he is was doing. Since by assassinating Soleimani, he basically made sure he (Trump) would not get the chance to have the negotiations he himself wanted to have with Iran. And which the neocons and Israelis were desperately trying to make sure never take place. By killing Soleimani, the neocons felt that they would be killing a lot of birds with one stone.

 

The Chinese and Russians are the ones with the greatest 'brute power' to do onto the US what the US does onto others. But brute power alone doesn't cut it. Especially with the other side is more powerful still and has a lot more ways than just weapons to get its way. For that reason, as much as you might count on Russia and China to create some balance into the current system we have in the hopes it will be governed less by the 'rules of the jungle' than it is now, I have no such hopes relying on them.

Iran has, more or less, the other things needed to stand up to the US. What it really lacks is the brute power. Especially without nukes deterring the US/Israel from using their's, Iran is ultimately too vulnerable to do onto the US, what the US can do onto it. Otherwise, the assassination of foreign leaders and generals is a piece of cake. Iran could do exactly what the US did to General Soleimani to a host of US officials who travel in the region. Whether it has the 'guts' to do it, and whether the war that will ensue if it does, can avoid becoming really ugly, are the real questions.

 

Think you missed the central point of my post - which perhaps was not that clear to be sure. In the past the world Economic Empire could "do as I say - not as I do" - without much fear of reprisal or others doing the same - as they were not just the military power but the economic power. All the US needed do is whisper a desire and nations would come running.

Things have changed - the rules we set - others will now follow - and if it is now OK to target foreign diplomats - what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

What I am suggesting is that the "rules of the jungle" mentality eventually comes home to roost.

 

No, I think I understood your point. I like to believe as you do, but do not. We just differ when it comes to our view of how that economic system operates and where its ultimate power still resides. We are farther, not closer, to a 'rules based system', than anytime since the international system that emerged from the ashes of WWII. And don't count on the 'economies' you allude to being able to make the point that: what is good for the goose, is also good for the gander." It ain't going to happen. The most they will be able to do (and not quite) is to hope there is some parts of of the idea of what is good for the gander applied to them too, even if not other ganders.

 

I agree that we are going further away from the rules based - was part of my point and I do not believe that things are going to head the other direction anytime soon.

This is how things go during the decline of an empire - increased chaos - both internal and external. They generally go kicking and screaming - and not gently into that good night.

 

Smart move. Not in the sense of Iran actually being able to get the US president arrested, of course, but in the message they're trying to send by doing it at all. They're trying to say that Iran trusts and respects international agreements and institutions, whereas the United States breaks international agreements and ignores international institutions. As a move meant to increase trust in future deals on nuclear energy in Iran, it paints a picture of Iran being respectful of and, thus more willing to comply with, the terms of a future nuclear deal that could lift sanctions on Iran. Wheras the United States can't be trusted to follow international agreements. In the past, the US and the other superpowers have done as they wanted, no matter what any international agreements say, but this acceptance of rule-breaking relied on having allies that trusted you to be as good an ally to you, as you to them. This is no longer the case, with US allies openly saying that the US can't be relied upon anymore, so the motive, imperative and incentive to keep on accepting US rule-breaking has lessened. By pointing out their own reliability, Iran could be positioning itself for, for example, persuading the EU to lift sanctions on Iran - even if the US insists they should remain sanctioned.