In times of crisis, I always turn to my most trust journalists for some clarity. In the case of the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, I can think of no better clear-headed analyst than Pepe Escobar who writes for the Asia Times.
Contrary to what we were led to believe in the US press, General Soleimani had flown to Baghdad on a normal carrier flight carrying a diplomatic passport. He had been sent by Tehran to deliver, in person, a reply to a message from Riyadh on de-escalation across the Middle East. Those negotiations had been requested by none other than the Trump administration.
Again, contrary to what our mass media claims is “all the news that’s fit to print,” we now learn, after the fact, that Baghdad was officially mediating between Tehran and Riyadh, at the behest of Trump, and Soleimani was the messenger. Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi was supposed to meet Soleimani at 8:30 am, Baghdad time, last Friday. But a few hours before the appointed time, Soleimani died as the object of a targeted assassination at Baghdad airport. Also killed by the drone was Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the leader of Kateab Hezbollah, both a powerful pro-Iranian paramilitary group and a legal, fully recognized Iraqi military entity. The US may consider paramilitary commanders like Muhandis to be evil terrorists but for many Shia Iraqis, he and his group were the people who fought against Saddam Hussein and defended them against ISIS.
As Mr. Escobar so emphatically points out: “Let this sink in, readers, for the annals of 21st Century diplomacy. It matters not whether the assassination order was issued by President Trump, the intelligence community or Israel. The fact is that the United States government on foreign soil, as a guest nation, has assassinated a diplomatic envoy who was on an official mission that had been requested by the United States government.
Following the assassination, the Iraqi Parliament approved a non-binding resolution asking the Iraqi government to expel US troops by cancelling a request for military assistance from the US.
Predictably, the US will refuse the demand, and Trump said as much himself: “If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame.”
US troops already are set to remain in Syria illegally – to “take care of the oil.” Iraq, with its extraordinary energy reserves, is an even more serious case. Leaving Iraq means Trump, US neocons and the Deep State lose control, directly and indirectly, of the oil for good.
With a single stroke, the assassination of Soleimani has managed to unite not only Iraqis but Iranians, and in fact the whole Axis of Resistance. And no US mass media PR will be able to disguise a massive strategic blunder – not to mention yet another blatantly illegal targeted assassination.
My favorite economist, Michael Hudson, sheds morea light on the killing: “The assassination was intended to escalate America’s presence in Iraq to keep control of the region’s oil reserves, and to back Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi troops (Isis, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Nusra and other divisions of what are actually America’s foreign legion) to support U.S. control of Near Eastern oil as a buttress of the US dollar. That remains the key to understanding this policy, and why it is in the process of escalating, not dying down.”
Neither Trump nor the Deep State could fail to notice that Soleimani was the key strategic asset for Iraq to eventually assert control of its oil wealth, while progressively defeating ISIS.
Killing Soleimani does prove that Trump, the intelligence community and Israel all agree on the essentials: there can be no entente cordiale between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Divide and rule remains the norm.