By Danny C. | DCPeriodical | 01/06/20 |
Defense industry servant and White House Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is becoming more and more the subject of scrutiny for the decision to assassinate Iran’s top General Qasem Soleimani last Thursday in Baghdad.
The White House and Pentagon’s official reasoning for the drone attack was that Soleimani, responsible for almost completely defeating ISIL and other jihadist terror-networks in Iraq and Syria, was planning on overseeing attacks on Americans and American assets in the Middle East.
- Gabbard Was Right: Pelosi’s “War Powers Resolution” Highlights Dem’s Complicity & Hypocrisy in Iran Escalations
- Iran Threatens Attack on American Soil, White House
- Iraq Parliament Says US Troops Must Get Out of Their Country
- Utter Disaster: Iran to Start Up Nuclear Program in Full Force
When questioned yesterday about how imminent these alleged forthcoming attacks were, Pompeo responded that such a question “is not relevant.”
President Donald Trump’s claim that the drone strike last week made Americans safer is being challenged by cascading events that appear to leave the US more vulnerable and isolated.
The administration’s basis for the attack…came under renewed suspicion after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CNN that it was not “relevant” for him to reveal how imminent the attacks on US interests were that Trump said Soleimani was planning.–CNN.
Pompeo’s response highlights the vagueness of the White House’s reasoning behind their brash actions and begs the question: if American intelligence really did intercept plans for attacks on Americans, why do they have zero specifics to provide about when and where said attacks were to take place?
Meanwhile, Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi revealed in a parliamentary session Sunday that Soleimani was on his way to meet with him the day his “political assassination” occurred.
He had plans to take part in a deescaltion negotiation between adversaries Iran and Saudi Arabia, meaning, ironically, the man Donald Trump described as “the number one terrorist anywhere in the world” — after he assassinated him — was not only responsible for the eradication of actual terrorists in the region, but was on his way to brokering a peace deal when he was killed.
The outgoing Iraqi leader says that Soleimani was supposed to bring him Iran’s response to a Saudi proposal for de-escalating regional tensions.–Daily Mail.
As we get further away from the assassination and view it in hindsight, the more likely it seems that it wasn’t at all an act of defense, but instead an intentional act of war meant to create reasoning for American troops to remain in the Middle East. This, of course, keeps the defense industry earning billions and pleases the actual countries Trump is subservient to, Iranian enemies Israel and Saudi Arabia.
In other words, the scales weighing the evidence for the droning having been a provicational act of war versus a defense against precrime seem heavily tipped in favor of the former.
To put it in perspective, if the unfortunate circumstance occurs in which America does suffer some sort of an Iranian attack now, nobody on earth could be stupid enough to question what provoked it.
As independent media, continuation of this periodical is only possible through the kind support of our readers. Become a patron by donating here, and if you can’t donate, that’s okay! You can help out greatly by simply clicking one of the share buttons below. And, hey! Don’t forget to subscribe and follow us on Twitter and Facebook.
Republishing of this article is encouraged, so long as no edits are made, it is printed in its entirety, author credits are given, and links are provided back to the original article before the body text.