Whoops…

The US continues to break the rules of international conduct.

“+ In killing Suleimani, the US assassinated a high ranking official of the Iranian government, who was traveling through Iraq on a diplomatic visa, even though the US is not at war with Iran, without authorization from the Iraqi government or US congress, based on evidence no one has seen or is likely to see.”

I’m very glad that Iran chose not to respond proportionately, they are most certainly entitled to, as America continues to demonstrate, acting outside of international law is par for the course.

“+ To this point at least, Iran appears to have acted with restraint. It didn’t target Pompeo Maximus or Mike Pence, which might have been considered a “proportionate” response to the assassination of Suleimani. It didn’t strike the diplomatic base at the US embassy. Instead, the regime launched a brace of missiles at military targets, two airbases in Iraq, inflicting, apparently, minimal casualties. Iran is in for the long game. They want the US out of Iraq. And that prospect is getting more and more likely every day.”

The assassination adds more fuel to the anti-american sentiments in the region. The Iraqi parliament has voted to remove the american troops from their country, I suppose this is one way to stop fighting foreign wars, by having your vassal states demand you leave…

“In a similar vein, Trump’s assassination lies swims in a richly bipartisan sea of U.S.-imperial falsehood on Iran and the Middle East. Democrats, conservatives, and the dominant U.S. media have long and fully participated in advancing the fabricated and dishonest notion that Iran is a uniquely evil, dangerous, belligerent, destabilizing, and terrorist actor in the Middle East – a totally absurd narrative (as I argued in my last CounterPunch essay: ‘By comparison to the Saudis, Israel, and above all their sponsor the U.S., Iran is a defensive power. Its modest interventions beyond its borders are about standard realpolitik defense of regional allies [the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, the Assad regime in Syria, and the Shiite government in Baghdad, not destabilizing regime change and terrorism.’)

Since they buy into all the idiotic doctrinal nonsense about Iran’s special “terrorist” evil, all but a few establishment politicos pull their punches on the arch criminality of Trump’s assassination of Soleimani. They concede endlessly that Soleimani was a “really evil guy” and “bad actor” who “deserved to die” because he was supposedly responsible for the death of “hundreds of American troops” in Iraq – as if Superpower America (which surrounds Iran with U.S. military bases) hasn’t directly and indirectly killed more than a million people in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Yemen in this century alone; as if Muslims both Persian and Arab don’t have the right to defend themselves against imperial intervention and violence.”

It’s the context of course. If Iran cannot respond militarily to foreign invaders in your land and sphere of influence, other avenues must be pursued. If it was my country under US siege I would advocate for the same courses of action.

This ham-handed move, like the great majority of imperial misadventures in the region serves only to reinforce resistance to American domination.

“The U.S. press has downplayed the assassination alongside the Iranian general of the head of the Katai’b Hizbollah militia that played a key role in the liberation of Mosul and other cities from ISIL in 2017. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis (62) was an official of the Iraqi state, killed in his own country because he and the Shiite militias in general are viewed by the Pentagon as enemies. But the existential struggle Iraq has faced since ISIL seized major cities in 2014 has been led not by the U.S. (providing air power and logistics) but by Iraqis. And while the Iraqi Army trained by the U.S., ridden by corruption and desertion and general incompetence buckled, the Shiite militia many trained by Iran were a decisive factor in victory.

Who does the average Iraqi more appreciate? The U.S. military, or Iran’s assistance in a common struggle against the hated caliphate that would never have materialized had the U.S. not invaded Iraq in the first place, based on lies? Who do you suppose the person on the street would mourn more? Gen. Soleimani or (say) Gen. Petraeus? My supposition is that the strike on both the Iranian general and Katai’b Hizbollah leadership are perceived as a U.S. ultimatum to Iraqis to choose: either the forces who’ve saved you from ISIL, and who will be with you forever close at hand; or the forces who’ve done more damage to you than the Mongols did the the thirteenth century.”

The majority of the US actions in the Middle East run contrary to any set of classical liberal values. What is on display is raw imperial avarice and near complete disregard for any of the civilized values the US purportedly represents. One needs only to call them terrorists and we can safely push the majority of lawful concerns and ethical problems aside.

I get it, they are the bad guys and the bad society and just look, look at what they do to their people and surround nations. They are acting in their most selfish, most narrow self interest.

To think that we are anything but marginally better when it comes to international relations and the associated realpolitik is fantasy. You haven’t made these arguments yet, you might not, but it seems like this is where we always end up.

I believe the rules of the world should apply to everyone equally, and you do not because we in the West represent ‘freedom, civilization and justice’ (but not for everyone, just when it happens to benefit us). Because we happen to have the military big stick right now we can get away with acting with impunity and ignoring the rules and standards we agreed to, and it’s fine. When the power shifts, and eventually it will, I certainly hope the fervent supporters of imperial might and ‘justice’ lauds the next ‘great power’ as it runs roughshod over international rules and weaker countries and most certainly not complain when grave injustice is done, but ignored because the perpetrators happen to believe they are the lawful civilized ones.

LikeLike

“So tell me Arb, where are the masses of Canadians parading down the streets holding placards with anti-Iranian slogans chanting ‘Death To Iran” for killing 63 Canadian citizens?
No, seriously… where are they? Why are these kinds of expressions absent?”

I would imagine that since not having undergone a devastating coup at the behest of US interests, nor having been recently been threatened by the US military ranging from air-strikes to nuclear intervention, the situation might be slightly different.

“Why is it okay for Iranian citizens to do this over the death of the general without a peep of criticism from the those always willing to vilify the US/West but nearly unthinkable social behaviour by citizens of the US/West?”

Would it be okay if the American populace took to the streets and demanded justice if an American government official was assassinated during a visit to Canada, by a foreign power who deemed them to be guilty of terrorist actions? The calls to exterminate various Middle Eastern cultures in the US after 9/11 were just as plaintive as the demonstrations in Iran.

“What you typically assume about the evil plots and ministrations of the US and its allies disappears entirely when it comes to judging the same behaviours and value by every other country. It’s ALWAYS the fault of the West generally and the US in particular. Every time. If the US does something, it’s always bad or, if somewhat good, the least they can do; if a country outside of the West does anything negative, it’s because it’s a response to the evil US. Always. ”

Behaving like all empires the US sets a fairly low bar. How can one not be considered evil, if the conscious decision has been made to live outside of the (notably imperfect) rules and institutions that have been set up to move toward a equitable and just world? Being the only remaining super power, I’m sure it would be insufferable to follow the rules we expect other countries to adhere to. Breaking the rules and ignoring international standards is what all empires do Russian, British, American… you name it … they act in accordance with the realpolitik of the situation. Acting solely in accordance with national self-interest isn’t particular ethical or just. It is important to acknowledge that despite our claims of being advanced and civilized, so beyond the barbarity we can easily point to over there, we’re not that far past them.

“there are no street demonstrations in Canada calling for death to Iran and there are important reasons for that, reasons that matter, reasons that have everything to do with the superiority of our Western liberal secular value system at work in the day to day lives not only of our citizens but throughout the West in every institution.”

It would seem that this superior system is currently undergoing a series of radical changes that is moving it far away from any sort of liberal/secular state. Inequality continues to rise while false-populists across the West continue to destroy the institutional bedrock of our democratic institutions. The nationalistic currents that we are quick to condemn in our official enemies are becoming more prevalent and more dangerous in the West by the year. Our system has the potential to be thought of as markedly superior, but I think it falls quite short.

“So either the facts about the US/West as immoral and unethical political/economic/military entities are wrong or you are wrong. – I think it’s you.”

I will be happy if I am wrong, along with the Iraqi parliament, who voted to remove the US occupying force from their country. Ethical counties do not invade other countries (Vietnam, Iraq) on false pretenses, nor do they visit ruin on defenceless civilian populations. Ethical countries do not sponsor right wing coups to overthrow democratically elected governments (Chile, Nicaragua, Boliva, Iran – 30 others… ). The weight of historical evidence would suggest that these are not actions of an ethical political/economic/military entity.

“I think you reliably parrot the despicable Chomsky in chronic negative belief about the US/West”

That you term one of the West’s leading scholars and one of the most quoted intellectuals in recent academic history as ‘despicable’ speaks volumes as to your level of ideological commitment over the the realm of facts and evidence.

“But in the real world, there is a marked difference and the fact US citizens would step up and sing Canada’s national anthem with gusto when the PA system broke down at a Red Wings’ hockey game is just one small example of this difference.”

A better example is Cuba unconditionally offering the United States Aid during Hurricane Katrina, and then the US denying aid to Cuba during hurricane Irma. This is the world of factual evidence I speak of, not the sunny-ways anthem singing or similar ephemeral events.

It was better, for American citizens to suffer and die, than to receive aid from an official enemy, similarly, better to let Cuban people die because the aid you offer conditionally comes with political strings attached that would be a direct threat to the sovereignty of the Cuba nation.

That is the realpolitik of the American polity. It is neither compassionate, nor ethical. Oh, and the sanctions are restrictions are back, so the economic War on Cuba has not only returned, but intensified.

“But the difference in any fair comparison, fair contrast, matters and should have some role to play when comparing and contrasting different countries.”

The information and evidence is there. We’re slightly more civilized than our official enemies, but retain and utilize the same atrocious methods -often on a larger scale- that they do to meet their nationalistic goals. If you wish to believe that this empire is somehow vastly different in its methodology and pursuit of its goals, you are most certainly entitled to do so.

“That’s what’s missing from your take on these kinds of posts. Fairness.”

The Nation that claims to be the Leader of the Free world *should* be held up to a more stringent standard. It is completely disheartening for me that we are so roundly under-performing on the world stage. Do I really enjoy critiquing the West and the US when they grandly bollocks things up? Hell no, but… but being on team enlightenment, team democracy and team human rights means that there darn well is a higher standard to live up to.

For heavens sake, we’re doing fantastically well when compared to Croatia, or Chile or Brazil but that should not be good enough. A better comparison currently is Russia. The openly oligarchic state is the dark mirror future of the US and the rest of the West if we do not radically correct our course and start acting like the Enlightenment started with us.

Brazenly assassinating enemy state officials, while in another neutral country, is not the sort of action a morally and ethically upstanding nation makes. The assassination has the hallmark of what any other empire would do. And we’re supposed to be better than that. Better than that by far.

LikeLike