Trump Turns to McCarthyite Attacks as His Soleimani Story Crumbles


Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond
From Venezuela and made by Venezuelan Chavistas

Trumpâs adoption of smears, combined with a shift in rationales for the killing of Qassem Suleimani, appears to reflect alarm that he is losing the Iran messaging battle.
By John Cassidy – January 14, 2020
After insisting for almost two weeks that he ordered the assassination of the Iranian general Qassem Suleimani to thwart an imminent Iranian-inspired operation, or operations, that could have killed hundreds of Americans, Donald Trump changed tack on Monday. In a series of statements, he claimed that Suleimaniâs history of orchestrating attacks on American soldiers and installations was sufficient to justify his killing, and he also suggested that Democrats who questioned his judgment were giving succor to terrorists.
In one of a barrage of Twitter posts on Monday morning, Trump said, âThe Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners are working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was âimminentâ or not, & was my team in agreement. The answer to both is a strong YES., but it doesnât really matter because of his horrible past!â Later in the day, Trump told reporters, âWe killed Soleimani, the No. 1 terrorist in the world by every account. Bad person. Killed a lot of Americans, killed a lot of people. We killed him. And when the Democrats try and defend him, itâs a disgrace to our country.â
The Democrats havenât been trying to defend Suleimani, of course. âNo American will mourn Qassem Solemainiâs passing,â the Presidential candidate Joe Biden said in one of the first Democratic responses to the January 3rd drone strike. âHe deserved to be brought to justice for his crimes against American troops and thousands of innocents throughout the region.â Other Democrats made similar statements. But Democrats have also pointed out that the Administration has failed to provide any convincing evidence to back up Trumpâs claim that the Iranian was plotting imminent attacks against Americans. Some of them, including Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, have made the argument that killing Suleimani was a dangerous escalation that has created greater danger for Americans, especially American service members in the Middle East.
When Trump feels challenged, he doesnât let the truth or common decency or respect for his office impair his demagogic response. Last Thursday, he told reporters, âYou know what bothers me? When I see a Nancy Pelosi trying to defend this monster from Iran who has killed so many people.â Pelosi didnât defend Suleimani. âIn fact, we were not able to find any examples of Democrats who have defended or âmournedâ the death of Iranâs top military commander,â FactCheck.org reported last Friday. But, of course, this admonition didnât halt Trumpâs efforts to demonize the Democrats. On Monday morning, he retweeted a Photoshopped image of Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, wearing traditional Islamic headwear, with an Iranian flag behind them. The caption on the tweet was âThe corrupted Dems trying their best to come to the Ayatollahâs rescue. #NancyPelosiFakeNews.â
Appearing on Fox News, Stephanie Grisham, the White House press secretary, didnât just defend Trumpâs inflammatory retweet. She sought to expand upon it, saying, âI think the President is making clear that the Democrats have been parroting Iranian talking points and almost taking the side of terrorists and those who are out to kill Americans.â
Trumpâs explicit adoption of McCarthyite smears, combined with the shift in rationales for the assassination of Suleimani, appeared to reflect alarm that he is losing the Iran messaging battle. This past weekend, an ABC News/Ipsos poll showed that a majority of Americans agree with the Democrats: fifty-two per cent of the respondents to the poll said that killing Suleimani made America less safe. And, on the same day that the poll was released, Trumpâs own Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, stated publicly that he hadnât seen a single piece of intelligence that backs up Trumpâs claim that Suleimani was plotting to blow up four American Embassies. âI didnât see one with regard to four embassies,â Esper said on CBSâs âFace the Nation.â (He hastily added, âI share the Presidentâs view that probablyâmy expectation was they were going to go after our embassies.â)
RELATED CONTENT: US Refuses to Leave Iraq, Tightens Siege on Iran
Esperâs admission was only one of many developments that have undermined Trumpâs initial explanations. On Monday, there was another one. NBC News reported that Trump gave provisional authorization for the killing of Suleimani seven months ago, âif Iranâs increased aggression resulted in the death of an American.â Citing five current and former Administration officials as sources, the NBC News story went on to say that the June Presidential order âcame with the condition that Trump would have final signoff on any specific operation to kill Soleimani.â
Trump hasnât disavowed his claim about an attack on four embassies being imminent, and he surely wonât. However, his Administration is clearly looking to make a case for the strike on Suleimani that doesnât hinge on the danger of an imminent attack. In a speech on Monday, Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State, argued that Suleimaniâs elimination was part of a broader U.S. strategy for âreĂ«stablishing deterrenceâreal deterrenceâagainst the Islamic Republic of Iran.â During a press conference at the Justice Department, William Barr, the Attorney General, also weighed in, describing the question of whether there was an imminent threat as âa red herring.â Barr said, âI think when youâre dealing with a situation where you already have attacks under way, you know there is a campaign that involves repeated attacks on American targets, I donât think there is a requirement, frankly, of knowing the exact time and place of the next attack. That certainly was the position of the Obama Administration when it droned leaders of terrorist organizations.â
The Obama Administration didnât drone a sovereign stateâs top general. Nor did it needlessly create a war scare with Iran that could have easily escalated into a full-scale conflict. Just how easily became clear on Monday when reporters visited the Ain al-Asad airbase, in Iraqâs Anbar Province, which Iran hit with a barrage of missiles last week. Contrary to initial reports, the Iranian weapons caused extensive damage, which included the destruction of a dormitory that housed U.S. service members. âA lot of people would have died if we hadnât moved,â U.S. Army Sergeant First Class Dan Kvasager told Richard Engel, of NBC News.
If the Iranian missile strike had resulted in multiple American deaths, weâd probably be on the way to war with Iran nowâand Trump would be busy lying about how it came about.
John Cassidy has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1995. He also writes a column about politics, economics, and more for newyorker.com.
Featured image: by Doug Mills / NYT / Redux