The Wall Street Journal reports White House Sought Options to Strike Iran.
President Trump’s National Security Council asked the Pentagon to provide the White House with military options to strike Iran last year, generating concern at the Pentagon and State Department, current and former U.S. officials said.
The request, which hasn’t been previously reported, came after militants fired three mortars into Baghdad’s sprawling diplomatic quarter, home to the U.S. Embassy, on a warm night in early September. The shells—launched by a group aligned with Iran—landed in an open lot and harmed no one.
But they triggered unusual alarm in Washington, where Mr. Trump’s national security team led by John Bolton conducted a series of meetings to discuss a forceful American response, including what many saw as the unusual request for options to strike Iran.
“It definitely rattled people,” a former senior U.S. administration official said of the request. “People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about hitting Iran.”
The Pentagon complied with the National Security Council’s request to develop options for striking Iran, the officials said. But it isn’t clear if the proposals were provided to the White House, whether Mr. Trump knew of the request or whether serious plans for a U.S. strike against Iran took shape at that time.
Mr. Bolton’s request reflects the administration’s more confrontational approach toward Tehran, one that he has pushed since taking up the post last April.
As a think-tank scholar and Fox News commentator, Mr. Bolton repeatedly urged the U.S. to attack Iran, including in a 2015 New York Times op-ed titled, “To stop Iran’s bomb, bomb Iran.”
Bolton Seriously Deranged
Bolton has learned nothing from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, or Syria. As a seriously deranged madman in precisely the wrong place, he a dangerous threat to US and global security.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
The military industrial complex used to only need the Rebublican hawks and talking heads like Bill, Kristol. Now they are obviously paying off the Dems. The Swamp has too much money at stake, yet you and others slam the only President that has tried to fight the military juggernaut.
“only…the best…people”….
I thought coming up with military options was the Pentagon’s job? It doesn’t mean the President will use the options. This smells like a TDS nothing burger. The reporter even admits halfway down the article that it is not known if there were “serious plans” at the Whitehouse for military actions, i.e., it’s not known that there is any “story” here at all! Great headline for clicks and hysteria though.
The US government, born from UK’s Tudor era, was flawed from the beginning. In the last 100 years it has struggled to overcome a tendency for clientelism. At some point it almost succeeded but in recent decades has relapsed to become more like a corporate oligarchy. Anyone thinking the wars and global economic oppression could be voted in or out by a choice of presidency misunderstands human behaviour and political history.
U.S. has had sanctions against many countries. How many actually led to a war? If sanctions are an act of war, are punitive tariffs an act of war too? You are on slippery slope.
2banana you have a piss poor memory.
“I am busy looking for the Mish article calling her a deranged madwoman and a dangerous threat to US and global security…hmmmm…no luck.”
Excuse me for pointing out that I repeatedly said I voted to Trump specifically because Hillary was a bigger warmonger than Trump.
I repeatedly blasted her over Syria.
I repeatedly blasted her over Libya.
You have a shockingly piss poor memory.
You called Hillary a “seriously deranged madwoman and a threat?”
Or anything close to that?
So give us the link.
No, you were quite cordial. And Hillary actually carried out the attacks on other counties.
Blasted? Hardley.
You seem to have two standards.
And don’t like being called out for it.
Perhaps this leak is used to undermine or get rid of Bolton by the ‘deep state’. I’m pretty sure John Brennan came up with crazier plots and some of them actually got implemented. But you didn’t read about those ‘leaks’.
Bolton is right to stand up for our allies, the Kurds, who Turkey want to attack. The Russians are also pissed with them because they know it is a large reason why the U.S. are sticking around in Syria, and thus they don’t get to be the dominant power in the region, which I suspect gives Putin a semi every time he thinks about it.
Bolton is wrong just about everywhere else – he sees vicious enemies that need aggressively destroyed everywhere he looks – however when there really is a vicious little creep like Erdogan he is right – like a stopped clock is.
Having 2000 US troops in Syria is NOT needed.
The Kurds, who fought ISIS bravely and even have female troops to kill ISIS fighters (according to ISIS doctrine if a woman kills you there is no paradise for you), should be protected by leaving 200-400 troops to just do some training and direct air strikes against ISIS but Kurds should do the fighting.
When it comes to Turkey it is clear Erdogan wants to butcher Kurds in Syria and hijack the currently Kurd controlled area either Directly to Turkey or to be controlled by the Turkmen Militias Erdogan has been supporting in Syria.
US must make clear that turkish troops need to stay in Turkey and if they attack the Kurds in Syria they will have American bombs raining on them as well as total economic blockdade stopping money flows to and from Turkey and stopping all exports to USA and all US allies and that US will also push for EU to block them.
Protecting Kurds is also good because it stops Iran getting influence and Iranian backed militias taking areas from Kurds in addition to Erdogan trying to butcher the Kurds.
When it comes to the current 14,000 troops in Afghanistan I think 9,000 of them should be brought home and maybe leave 5000.
For Iraq the current 5000 troops should be kept there.
For Germany US has 35,000 troops which is an insanely large number.
Bring 30,000 of them home and leave 5000.
For Japan US has 55,000 troops there and this is crazy.
Bring at least 30,000 home and leave maybe 25,000 there.
For South-Korea US has 25,000 troops there and they should be kept because of the little rocketman.
For UK there are 9,000 US troops, bring 4000 home.
For Italy there is 12,000 troops, bring 7000 home.
Bolton’s bomb Iran fantasies are lunatic level and US should not start bombing them unless they start to bomb USA.
I think sanctions should be continued and Iran should be stopped from having the atom bomb if that is possible.
I agree that 2,000 troops are not needed in Syria, and, quite frankly, in most of the other bases you mention.
All we need are a few hundred in each area we want to stop incursions (this is different from projecting influence, where you want overpowering force).
All an adversary needs to know is that there are 200 U.S. troops near or on the front line of any divide, and that an attack will likely kill at least one U.S. troop, at which point a devastating retaliation would be guaranteed.
U.S. troops can be tripwires rather than entrenched forces in many places.
The MIC is just making sure the defense budget is 75% greater than it needs to be to be for the U.S. to achieve our goals.
I’m not saying this is a primary motivation for Middle Eastern nuclear but I do wish to point out something the US and Westerners give absolutely no consideration for: the West lives in a world of relatively abundant access to drinking water. We never consider that the Middle East RELIES on desalinated water. And what is the primary ingredient to create desalinated water? HEAT. The all to abundant by-product of nuclear energy electric generation is exactly that – HEAT. Nuclear electric generation folds in perfectly for desalination. It may not justify it – but we need to allow for their desire for that by-product.
Dude,
There are two kinds of nuclear power plants.
Those that can’t produce nuclear grade plutonium for bombs and those that can.
Funny how Iran wants to build the ones that can produce nuclear grade plutonium for bombs.
I am sure it was just an oversight….
He is the walrus, coo co kachoo… But now there’s a new theme song:
“We came, we saw, he died…cackle, cackle, cackle…”
— Secretary Hillary Clinton, on orders of President Obama, on the overthrow and assassination/murder of Muammar Gaddafi, the legitimate and internationally recognized leader of Libya – which then plunged that country into chaos.
The same Hillary Clinton, who came within a hair’s breath of winning the US Presidency.
I am busy looking for the Mish article calling her a deranged madwoman and a dangerous threat to US and global security…hmmmm…no luck.
And all Bolton did was look at options…
It’s been disabled already, lol, supposedly by the video owner. Could the owner be Hitlery? Vlad the Impaler: “They came, they saw, we impaled.
For some reason it works on youtube but the link does not work
Supposedly Bolton and Pompeo have Trump’s ear on Iran and the Syria withdrawal was announced with the intention of enlisting Turkish support for Iran sanctions (probably a secondary purpose, with the main one being the cessation of Erdogan’s attacks on MbS and the House of Saud).
I’ve long felt bad for regular Iranian people. The ayatollahs haven’t been popular for quite a while and we’ve done nothing but antagonize them since 1953. Unfortunately the Saudis and Israelis have it in for them, therefore we do too.
I used to work with a woman that was from Iran. She told me how most people hated the Imams. If the Imams hailed a taxi, the driver would not pick them up, so they resorted to wearing western clothes to get a ride.