The Arab Spring

Nope, Sadr's definitely mobilising against America specifically here.

This just seems like pretty standard saber rattling for the base, it’s not a direct call to action against the US. Knowing al-Sadr he’s probably got his own angle he’s working here.

Worth noting that Sadr has been staying in Qom since November, so he's probably not going to say anything overtly anti-Iranian for the time being.

Also, uh, you might want to review that particular news site's leanings. Just saying.

Edited by eagleoftheninth on Jan 3rd 2020 at 4:08:27 AM

There is another airstrike.

I feel like Trump is banking on the protesters being grateful that the US is trying to dismantle the PMF through airstrikes....and is undermining his own message by not asking Baghdad.

Eh, if an Iranian propaganda site is willing to big up Sadr, that's evidence of its own sort.

Reuters says the US will no longer be training Iraqi forces.

The second airstrikes is going to get the Iraqis even more up in arms, Trump isn’t just stoking a possible war with Iran, he’s stoking one with Iraq.

Do the Iraqis have any air defences these days? Because if things keep escalating they might soon be firing upon US planes.

See, it would've actually been productive if the US had stood up behind the protesters before starting to randomly blow things up. Striking at the PMFs at this point is only going to result in them declaring the protesters American puppets and ramping up the violence.

It doesn't look like an Iranian nationalist site so much as a conservative pan-Shi'a one. Portraying all the Shi'a powerbrokers as one big happy family would be consistent with that agenda.

Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Gen Mark Milley: Soleimani was planning 'campaign' of violence against US. So, a couple of things:

1) Technically true, but you could say the same for every moment of the past decade.

2) Iranian proxy groups can strike US targets on their own without Soleimani personally micromanaging them day by day. If the goal is to reduce attacks, driving them to berserker rage mode might not be the best way of doing it.

Edited by eagleoftheninth on Jan 3rd 2020 at 4:59:59 AM

I imagine Syria would not mind getting in on that action too, at least vis a vis their oil fields. I don't think the US can actually hold those if Iraq kicks them out of the neighboring area.

That is indeed what the protesters fear now. But do they stop, do they continue? How much more can Baghdad take from this many angles before it implodes....

Edited by FFShinra on Jan 3rd 2020 at 6:46:16 AM

Apparently, the US has now hit a Yazidi militia? This is why Iraq seems to be turning against them so fast - they're basically looking like they've sided with ISIS.

... the heck are the US doing at this point?

Al-Sura is a citizen journalism outlet with a history of sensational reporting. I'd advise against citing them as an authoritative source on anything.

Especially, y'know, if you hadn't been actively watching the situation in Iraq until yesterday.

Anyway, Iraq has been overflowing with rumours of additional airstrikes against PMF targets over the past couple of days. Most of them have since turned out to be false: there's the above rumour of a strike on a convoy in Taji which was denied by both Iraqi and US sources. The initial reporting of the Baghdad Airport strike (which I was guilty of copy-pasting here without checking) included Lebanese Hezbollah deputy leader Naim Qassem among the casualties, which has also turned out to be false.

There are Yazidi militias under the PMF umbrella, whose ties with Iran I'm not too familiar with. But seeing as most of them are in the Nineveh Governorate and wholly uninvolved with the mess unfolding around Baghdad, I'd hold back on trusting that report until it's confirmed by other sources. And if attacking forces who fought ISIS means siding with them, then the PMFs and Iraqi Army themselves already crossed that line when they took Kirkuk from the Peshmerga back in 2017.

Edited by eagleoftheninth on Jan 4th 2020 at 6:44:06 AM

Yeah I had linked about the Taji airstrike, since it was coming from Al Jazeera, but I guess rumors affect the big agencies too, at times.

Does seem to lend itself credence to there being a hair trigger with regards to the tension though, given how jumpy even the media is....

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2020/01/canadas-military-advisers-unsure-if-they-should-be-training-iraqi-army-to-fight-isis-iran-or-us/

I sympathize with fellow Canadians who are really pissed with Trump while serving over there.

To clarify this is a satire. I mean it's probably obvious, but I'm the sort of person who needs disclaimers, and somebody else might also be.

I can sympathize with them, but I am totally part of the fake 92% statistics for not knowing about the training (I know we have a military), which probably helps the joke.

Edited by phantom1 on Jan 4th 2020 at 7:33:35 AM

Global news vid on Soleimani's death.

Yeah, I second the need to add disclaimers to satire links here. If you ever come across a similar article with Aussies instead of Canadians, make sure to check whether it's from The Shovel or The Betoota Advocate.

So, today's updates:

• Several Iraq-US military bases in Baghdad, including Balad Air Base, came under rocket and mortar fire. No military casualties this time, but there's a possibility that civilians close to the bases might've gotten injured. Same routine as the past few months, more or less.
• New York Times covered the decision-making process that resulted in Trump ordering the strike. Basically, the NSC clique has a long-standing habit of putting extreme measures into their briefings in order to sway the President into picking a more moderate one. In this case, the President opted for the most extreme one after the embassy storming, and USSOCOM (not the CIA, apparently) ended up having to cash that cheque.
• Reuters interviewed anonymous Iraqi government and PMF sources to hash out the details of Soleimani's operations. Some key points:
  • The (alleged) objective was to provoke a US military response that would redirect the protest movement's anger from Iran. News from the movement have been spotty, but the PMFs and their civilian constituency have been turning up in force across Baghdad for his funeral procession, so functionally, in the immediate term... mission accomplished, I guess?
  • Kata'ib Hezbollah was apparently picked out to execute rocket attacks on account of its capability to scout out US bases with drones.
  • There's also an apparent scheme to supply the militias with man-portable anti-aircraft missile, which is Big, If True. It's been a pretty taboo weapon to supply to non-state group for the past 2-3 decades.
• And fresh from the White House: the Commander-in-Chief threatens to hit 52 Iranian targets, including cultural heritage sites, in retaliation for any Iranian strike. I mean... cripes. It's the most absurd thing in the world, but none of us would've imagined him droning Soleimani a week ago, so...

Throwback with an interview with Iranian FM Zarif in 2019.

The Iraqi Parliament is quorate, the PM wants US troops out, and it looks like he's got the votes.

Big news - they've voted to end the security agreement and kick the US out. This means that Sadr's faction voted with the government.

Hezbollah says they will be retaliating for Soleimani's death, but not against American civilians.

Full article on the vote on The National. Well, that was quick. The language implies that they're passing the buck to the executive branch, which is a tad awkward as Mahdi has technically resigned and is waiting for a replacement.

Edited by eagleoftheninth on Jan 5th 2020 at 7:35:39 AM

Sadr called out the resolution for not going far enough, called for militia groups to unite.

Attendance at Soleimani's funeral was colossal.

What I found interesting (from Wikipedia) is that allegedly, both Bush and Obama considered having this Soleimani assassinated and refrained from doing so as they felt this might cause an uncontrollable escalation.