Herland Report: Steve Brown: Subsequent to the US strike on Iran’s military leader Suleimani in Iraq, most analysts believed that Iran would retaliate right away with attacks on US bases in Iraq, perhaps resulting in a broader war.
By Swiss envoy, Iran communicated its right to self-defense as defined by UN Article 51, while the United States warned that any US loss of life in Iraq would result in major war versus Iran.
Others, including this author, believed Iran’s leadership would bide its time, seek the moral high ground, and retaliate later on in an unexpected way. But the public call for retaliation in Iran was quite outspoken, and Iran’s people demanded a response.
That public call for revenge was too strong for Khamenei to ignore, so a strike on two US bases in Iraq was arranged via a Swiss channel. There has been much speculation about such a retaliatory strike arrangement… but how to prove it?
First, consider that even formidable belligerents may not seek war, or may perceive outright warfare as inappropriate to accomplish political goals.
As such, a mutual desire for reduction in tension between the two belligerents may be sought. When direct diplomatic dialogue is not possible, tensions may be reduced by back-channel communication, writes Steve Brown, regular contributor to The Herland Report and widely read scholar on the United States monetary system, Middle East issues and cultural analysis. He is also the author of books such as Federal Reserve: Out-sourcing the Monetary System to the Money Trust Oligarchs Since 1913.
Millions watch Herland Report TV. Subscribe:
By Swiss envoy, Iran communicated its right to self-defense as defined by Article 51 of the UN Charter, while the United States warned that any US loss of life in Iraq would result in a major war versus Iran.
From the back-channel results seen, a symbolic military action was agreed upon, where no lives would be lost.
From the back-channel results seen, a symbolic military action was agreed upon, where no lives would be lost. Such a face-saving combat event — arranged to avoid outright war — is uncommon but not unheard of.
One recent example of an arranged combat event occurred near the Lebanese/Israeli border as reported in Israel v Hezbollah: Disputed Claims in a Disputed Territory . In August 2019, Hezbollah vowed to retaliate for aggressive Israeli actions in the Kfar Shuba Hills region, and in Beirut.
Neither side was prepared for war over two somewhat minor incidents – at least by the region’s standards — and Hezbollah carried out what Israel called a symbolic strike on an Israeli robotic target to quell outraged public opinion on both sides.
Truth is the first to die in war, and the Avivim escapade did appear to avoid a broader conflict. Now the same category of event occurred by Iran’s strike on two US bases in Iraq.
Iran has clearly stated that it does not want war with the US, even subsequent to its strike on Iran’s military leader. Via the Swiss diplomatic channel, Iran exercised its Article 51 right to reprisal as agreed with a limited strike on two US bases. The US administration was informed when, where, and how the attack would be carried out.
This agreement may be verified by the standing-down of the Raytheon GEM-T missiles at both US bases, proof that Iran’s strike was pre-arranged. Of all missiles fired, only four were duds. If the GEM-T systems had been readied and in use the failure rate of Iranian ballistic missile strikes on the bases would be far higher. As a result, the bases would suffer minor damage, far less than may be seen in verifiably released satellite photographs of the two bases, independent and from non-US or Iran government sources.
This agreement may be verified by the standing-down of the Raytheon GEM-T missiles at both US bases, proof that Iran’s strike was pre-arranged.
Some analysts have argued that the Erbil base had no GEM-T defense, but information exists that Israel has three secret intelligence sites near that base so any idea that Erbil would stand undefended by anti-missile systems is preposterous.
Erbil was chosen as a target specifically due to its symbolic association with the Kurds and Israel, a tactical consideration not lost on the US military or on Israel; and Israel possesses plenty of its own GEM-T’s. At both bases, the GEM-T defenses were demonstrably not in operation.
To the US military, self-defense is of paramount importance. The notion that the US military would stand-down its anti-missile defenses at a time of imminent peril without a pre-arranged agreement is beyond preposterous, it is absurd.
Furthermore, there were no casualties of any sort at either US base, with a long lead time for evacuation and US bunkering, which proves that Iran provided plenty of warning to the United States via the Swiss diplomats.
Ironically the corporate cheerleaders for war must be highly amused and enthused at what just occurred in Iraq. The Washington Post, cheerleader for corporates and their weaponry, is running an article about the need for bigger, better, and more expensive US anti-missile systems.
The author claims that US bases in Iraq do not possess anti-missile systems, a revelation which, on its own, must be vetted by the US military prior to release, and is not a verifiable statement.
Conclusive circumstantial evidence exists that the US base strikes in Iraq were arranged with Iran, but no reporter is demanding answers.
Conclusive circumstantial evidence exists that the US base strikes in Iraq were arranged with Iran, but no reporter is demanding answers. Instead a substantial media disinformation campaign is leveraged to maintain the illusion that a foreign nation possesses sovereignty.
That the US killing of Iran’s senior military leader resulted in Iran’s pre-arranged strike on two US bases in Iraq gives rise to major international law questions about the role of the United States as occupier and invader. And specifically, a US agreement to allow Iran to engage in planned counter-strikes in Iraq proves that the US appreciated its culpability with regard to the Suleimani killing.
The missile strike agreement further focuses on the notion that only might makes a right, a very dangerous argument most commonly propounded by militarists. To have citizens focus on the idea that US diplomacy is only enforced by the barrel of a gun is not a realization the political class desires among its citizenry. However, based on what just happened in Iraq, it is the only realization we are presented with.