All is not well, as US attempt to reduce Iranian influence backfires

Very soon after Qassim Soleimani was whacked by the hoodlums who go by the name of US Government and its Military, the Iraqi parliament announced it would be sitting in an emergency session to tackle a task that some of its membership had already been looking to get to grips with in 2019. A motion was passed, and the Iraqi Government was compelled to withdraw a request for assistance from CJTF-OIR (i.e. NATO in Iraq, and illegally in Syria), and also to deny foreign militaries access to Iraqi territory.

Before the Iraqi parliament voted, it was pointless to rush to publish any reaction to the murder of the Iranian general in terms of speculation as to what it could mean war-wise. Because, it was very likely, although not a complete certainty, that the United States military would have its legality rescinded, and then Iran could provide a hurry-up to expedite departure. It should have been clear to the careful thinker that this is how there could be revenge for the callously assassinated general. As a bonus, but only for those who think Iran is deterred by the risk of giving the USA a casus belli, it wouldn’t necessarily have had to involve a direct confrontation.

Unfortunately, there must be talk of imminent war and, of the USA about to go to it, because this chatter is all part and parcel of a psyop. The objective is to create a perception of US capability, which doesn’t actually exist. And while the star-billing, big name alternative media punditry might even forecast an end of American empire (for the appearance of being credible), it will never forego the opportunity to attribute to the hegemony’s war machine enough martial muscularity to cause bloody carnage even in its death throes.

As it turns out, Iran didn’t rely on surreptitiousness by proxy, and took responsibility for an attack upon American interests by a number of ballistic missiles (fired between 1:45 and 2:15, Iranian time, 8th January, 2020). It was a bold stroke, and may have caused damage to materiel particularly at Ayn Al-Assad airbase in Anbar; there were reports of US jets hit on the ground†. Responding to the attack, Trump tweeted (rather than declaring war, like some would have us believe he ought):

Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far!

When one appreciates how the US military dealt with the attack, then Trump’s boastfulness appears ridiculous. The Americans claim that of 15 missiles, 10 hit Ayn Al Assad, while one struck the Combined Joint Operations Center in Irbil, and four missiles failed (the Iranians have not yet, at the time of writing, given out details regarding the attack)‡. The US military was not so powerful that it could not intercept even one missile – the story goes that it didn’t try, it just moved its people out before the impact. If there is wreckage of military jet planes at Ayn Al Assad, then the Americans certainly couldn’t move fast enough.

If the Americans had stopped a missile, Trump could brag about power and equipage. As it is, he should have crowed about being the best in the world at looking, ducking and vanishing. Besides which, if the Americans would try to make out that Iran’s action provided only pyrrhic success, they are forgetting that the objective would have expressly been to cause an evacuation. And most crucially of all, anyone trying to belittle what Iran did is overlooking the fact that it dared to do it.

It’s like when the Iranians shot down the US drone in June, 2019, but on a slightly larger scale. At the time, yours truly wrote of it as a calling of Trump’s bluff – after which Trump went on bluffing. The same applies now:

The bigger picture is that the Iranians shot down a US aircraft, at a time in which they were supposed to be wary of the US bearing down on them with disintegrating warfare, knowing full well that wherever they shot it down [i.e. even if it was shot down invading Iranian airspace] there would inevitably be an accusation of foul play by the Americans. In short, the Iranians did not care if the Americans were trying to create a casus belli.

There should be no surprise if the Americans try to pretend that the Iranians didn’t dent them in this new incident – or that, all is “so far, so good”. Trump’s assessment is from the same people who brought us the demonstration of American exceptionalist psychosis that was the Millenium Challenge 2002, when the Iranians in the war game in question gave the USA a kicking, and so the parameters had to be reset so that the “most powerful and well equipped military” could win.

Ultimately, the US saw the killing of Qassim Soleimani as part and parcel of its effort to reduce Iranian influence (the next best thing when Iran is an immovable obstacle, and all-out war with it is not an option). The assassination wasn’t a stupid mistake; on the contrary, for American planners, it was probably the easiest option in a portfolio of scenarios for the reduction of the Iranian sphere. That it was a below-the-belt cheap shot was just an aspect of its easiness. And with the killing came a lot of bluff that painted Iran as an aggressor being fairly dealt with. This gaslighting was supposed to infect Iranian thinking with weakness (the Anglo-Globalist belief in psycho-magic is a Masonic thing). In other words, Iran was not meant to call the bluff. It did, and now, in all the world, it is the country that can shoot back at the USA. If the Americans thought they were going to defy the Iraqis and squat, then today they might not be so certain.

† For example, “Important IF true, a security source for Al-Mayadeen has confirmed that a plane was destroyed on the runway at Ein Al-Assad base.” (Source)

The fact is, the American’s are simply not going to admit such losses. We should note that there was plenty of Twitter chatter about the US scrambling planes after the initial news of the attack. The Americans were certainly acting with a view to the danger of these assets being hit on the ground; we probably won’t know for certain if they were surprised at Ayn Al Assad.

The Daily Mail is reporting the claims made by Iranian state television (and bear in mind that, when one resides in Britain, one cannot readily verify that such a broadcast occurred):

At least 80 ‘American terrorists’ were killed in attacks involving 15 missiles launched by Tehran on U.S. targets in Iraq, adding that none of the missiles were intercepted.

State TV, citing a senior Revolutionary Guards source, also said Iran had 100 other targets in the region in its sights if Washington took any retaliatory measures.

It also said U.S. helicopters and military equipment were ‘severely damaged.’

Note that the Mail has made an error. The 15 figure is the number of missiles that hit the Ayn Al-Assad airbase alone.

As at 17:00, date as published, the Syrian Arab News Agency is citing Iranian state TV, giving a direct quote: “at least 80 US army personnel have been killed in the Iranian missile attack launched against U.S. base of Ein al-Assad by the IRGC.” Very possibly news for internal consumption, the question that immediately begs itself is how have the Iranians come by the data? It is something to think about. If there are casualties, are they NATO intelligence assets, and thus deniable by western governments?

‡ As at, 13:30, date as published, the Iraqis, not the Iranians, have provided some counter information.

From the Metro:

Iraq’s military has said 22 missiles were launched in total at the Al Asad and Irbil bases. Two of the 17 missiles fired at Al Asad did not go off, it said in a statement. The five on Irbil all targeted coalition headquarters.