By Jon Dougherty
(TNS) Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice continued to carry water for her former boss, President Obama, Friday night during an appearance on MSNBC, when she lied openly and blatantly — again — following news that the Trump administration sent Iran’s top terrorism general to Hades with a Hellfire.
On to discuss the death of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of theÂ Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corpsâ€™ elite Quds Force, Rice did her best impression of herself following the Benghazi disaster, when she went on five different Sunday morning news programs to tell the world the attack on our U.S. consulate and murder of four diplomatic personnel including Amb. Chris Stevens was the result of some obscure video from California.
It really was classic: Rice, the liar, discussing the bold leadership decision by a real president, Donald Trump, with another liar, Rachel Maddow, who has told her audience for three years that “Russian collusion” really happened — when it didn’t (because it was a hoax).
Susan Rice: "The Obama administration was not presented with an opportunity by our intelligence community or by the U.S. military to strike Qassem Soleimani." pic.twitter.com/y0CrcnfLvw
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) January 4, 2020
One of the biggest fibs is Rice’s statement that “the Obama administration was not presented with an opportunity by our intelligence community or by the U.S. military to strike Qassem Soleimani.”
Had we been presented such an opportunity, what we would have done is weigh very carefully and very deliberately the risks versus the potential rewards.
So, if in fact the administration can be believed that there was indeed strong intelligence of an imminent threat against the United States thatâ€™s being carried out by Soleimani and related militia then the question becomes, [was] there more than one way to address that threat? Was the only way to deal with it to kill Soleimani? Certainly, given his history and track record, he deserves his just rewards but the question is does that serve our interests? Does that make us more secure?
I do think the risk of direct conflict and sustained conflict with Iran â€“ a war â€“ has gone up immeasurably. Thereâ€™s no question in my mind that they will retaliate in a very serious way in a time and a place of their choosing â€” maybe multiple times and multiple places.
What a load of horse manure.
The fact is, Soleimani strode through the Middle East during the Obama years like he owned the place. It wouldn’t have been difficult at all for U.S. intelligence to pick up his trail and send him to Hades if, in fact, Obama had wanted to do so.
After all, the man ordered more than 3,000 drone strikes during his time in the White House. Now, if U.S. intel could identifyÂ those targets, they sure could have found Soleimani who, again, wasn’t trying to hide.
And for the record, ObamaÂ should have targeted this guy. He was responsible for the deaths of multiple hundreds of U.S. troops fighting in Iraq against militias that were armed, in part, by Soleimani’s Quds forces.
But no. Obama wanted a “legacy” which was allowing the Iranians to build nuclear weapons at some point down the road while claiming he had stopped them from doing so in the present.
Rice was a part ofÂ all of this. She knew the intimate details of the Obama regime’s dealings with Iran and what the president’s policy objectives were regarding the Islamic republic.
“Seemingly immune from U.S. retaliation, Soleimani spent the Obama years strutting around Iraq and Syria like a peacock in â€™70s-style turtleneck sweaters and an array of tailored military style jackets like an IRGC version of Al Pacino inÂ Scarface, while garnering admiring magazine profiles,” Badram wrote, adding:
This nauseating treatment started at the top. Under President Obama, the U.S. was realigning with Iran, which meant providing its regime with billions of dollars, some of it hand delivered by U.S. officials in the form of large pallets of cash. The U.S. also provided direct military support to Soleimaniâ€™s Iraqi militias as part of the anti-ISIS campaign. It was important not to cross Iranâ€™s red lines, administration officials regularly leaked at the time, so as not to jeopardize the safety of U.S. soldiers while they killed Iranâ€™s enemies in Iraq and Syriaâ€“a strategy that was variously labeled as â€œcounterterrorismâ€ or â€œthe fight against Al Qaedaâ€ or â€œthe war against ISIS,â€ and which invariably involved aligning with Iran to kill Sunni Arabs, who form the majority of the regionâ€™s population.
Taking the red-carpet treatment for granted, Iran appears to have badly miscalculated with President Trump.
He sure did. But let’s be clear: Obama’s agenda with Iran never included targeting a brutal terrorist, Soleimani, who was targeting (and killing) American troops thatÂ Obama deployed to Iraq.
Also, like other former Obama administration officials and practically ever Democrat in Congress is claiming that President Trump’s decision was “reckless,” haphazard, “risky.”
It was anything but. The Trump administration has been watching as Iran, for the past two years, steadily ramped up its activities in the Middle East in pursuit of its own foreign policy objectives. Iran increasingly controlled portions of Iraq and the Iraqi government, to the detriment of U.S. goals and objectives.
And in the past week, Iran-backed proxies –Â under orders probably from Soleimani — fired on a base occupied by U.S. troops, injuring four and killing an American contractor.
Then, Iran-backed militants — under orders probably from Soleimani — besieged the American embassy in Baghdad, setting some buildings on fire.
Rice intimated that the Obama pinheads would have deliberated and deliberated and deliberated about what to do, what to do — which is, reportedly, how Benghazi became the disaster it was.
Trump, on the other hand, wasÂ decisive. Most likely acting on the advice of his national security team, he immediately dispatched helicopter support and Marines to the embassy, which led to the end of the siege and, soon afterward,Â Soleimani’s death.
Rice and others claim this is only going to lead to a military response from Iran and a “war.” Maybe. But as Jonathan Davis at Great Power War writes, attacking a U.S. base or warship or something else equally stupid would be suicide for the Iranian regime:
But is Trumpâ€™s response going to escalate things in the Middle East? Will Iran double down on efforts to attack Americans and our allies in the region? Or will the Ayatollah take the message Trump just sent and back away from confrontation â€” at least direct confrontation?
The Iranian leadership already had domestic unrest to deal with, thanks to the imposition of sanctions that have cost the country more than $200 billion,Â accordingÂ to President Hassan Rohani. A shooting war with the U.S. wouldnâ€™t last long because Iran simply lacks the power (and money) to emerge victorious.
But a proxy war would do the trick. Iran could continue to fund and supply its proxies in Iraq without risking its own survival.
- Check out â€œDEEP STATE 2019: A New Generation of Scandalous Manipulationâ€Â â€”Â download for FREE inÂ Crisis Reports
Or not. Trump just made it clear that direct action against Americans anywhere in the Middle East, even through proxies, will have deadly results involving ranking members of Iranâ€™s governing elite.
What the Iranian regime wants more than a war with a global superpower is toÂ survive. Picking a fight with the United States is not a good survival strategy.
As for Rice, her pathetic testimony to Maddow left us wondering how either of them sleep at night.
- We need your help to grow, pure and simple. Share our stories, make sure to tell your friends about this site, and click the red bell in the right corner for push notifications.Â
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY? COMMENT BELOW