Details are still coming in but it is being reported by Iraqi media and others that Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, has been killed in a U.S. airstrike. Almasdar News is reporting:

The head of Iran’s elite Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani, has reportedly been killed in a strike near the Baghdad International Airport, along with senior leaders of the Iraqi Shia militia the US blamed for the attack on its embassy.

“The American and Israeli enemy is responsible for killing the mujahideen Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Qassem Soleimani,” said Ahmed al-Assadi, a spokesman for Iraq’s Popular Mobilisation Forces, as cited by Reuters…

…Reuters reported that the Pentagon has claimed responsibility for the strike, citing an unnamed US official.

According to the military analyst The Saker, Russian media is reporting the following:

The Telegram channel of RIA News reports that the US has claimed that it was responsible for that attack.

So far, PressTV [Iranian state news outlet] has NOT confirmed the death of Soleimani but other media outlets have.

Middle East analyst Danny Makki explained on Twitter the significance of the killing of Soleimani:

Qassem Suleimani was more than just a General or a military leader, he was Iran’s ultimate symbol of power, strength & influence in the Middle East, rushing between Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, his assassination is not just an escalation, its effectively a declaration of war.

Two questions come to mind. First, how can Iran not treat this as an overt act of war? Secondly, how was this act by the U.S. government in the interest of Americans?

Update #1: It is now being reported that Trump personally ordered the assassination of Suleimani.

Iran expert Trita Parsi has publicly said the following:

Spoke to a very knowledgeable person about what Iran’s response to Soleimani’s assassination might be. This would be the equivalent of Iran assassinating Petreus or Mattis, I argued. No, he responded, this is much bigger than that…

Update #2: Here are a couple of videos from The Hill’s Rising morning show in which Iran expert Trita Parsi is interviewed, along with journalist Aaron Mate.

During his traditional end of year Q&A on December 19th, Putin made some comments about possible changes that could be made to the Russian constitution. These comments have been the subject of some attention by international media and Russia watchers. This has included some strange interpretations suggesting that Putin may use the mentioned changes to somehow finagle staying in office past 2024 when his current presidential term ends.

As context for Putin’s comments, currently the Russian constitution states that a president cannot serve more than two consecutive terms. The 1993 constitution came about as a result of the showdown that had arisen that year between Yeltsin and the Duma – which tried to rein in his abuses of power. The standoff was resolved when Yeltsin ordered the military to attack the parliament building with force, killing around 500 and wounding around 1,000. The 1993 constitution consequently provided for a strong executive and a weak legislative branch. Putin inherited this arrangement and has utilized it to great effect to implement his agenda, but he was not responsible for its establishment.

Below is a transcript of Putin’s remarks regarding the constitution, including the question that prompted them:

Yelena Glushakova: Yelena Glushakova, RIA Novosti.

Since you mentioned that you are a lawyer, the first part of my question relates to legal matters, Mr President. My question will be on the Constitution. In your opinion, could it be that the time has come to amend the Constitution? These questions surface every now and then, and have recently been discussed. If the time has come, what part could be changed? Are you satisfied with the amendments that were introduced ten years ago to change some articles in our Constitution?

The second part of my question is about politics, and relates to the political system our country has. Within a few days, it will be 20 years since you came to the helm. Is there a need, in your opinion, to make changes, like maybe reassigning powers between the parliament, the government or even the president?

And my final question, if you allow me. Do we have competition in Russian politics, in your opinion?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the Constitution, this is a live tool that has to keep up with the evolution of society. However, it is my belief that we do not have to change the Constitution, I mean adopt a new one, especially since it sets forth some fundamental principles that we have yet to fully achieve. This refers to its first chapter. I believe this part to be sacrosanct.

All the other provisions can be amended in one way or another. I am aware of the ongoing debates on this subject; I see them and hear them. I understand the logic behind what others propose. This is related to possibly expanding the powers of parliament and changing to some extent the powers of the president and the government. But all this has to be well prepared, result from a meaningful debate within society, and be carried out with extreme caution.

Regarding the past amendments, as far as I know, they were related to the number of terms. What could be done in this respect? We could take out the mention of “consecutive” terms. We have this provision, and yours truly served for two consecutive terms, then left this office and had the constitutional right to once again become president, because this did not interfere with the “two consecutive terms” limit. Some political observers and civil society activists have voiced misgivings over this provision. We can probably remove it.

There are some other questions, but they are more about preferences rather than necessity.

I can once again mention the powers of parliament. I do understand political parties, especially those represented in parliament, that believe that we have reached a level in the development of parliamentarism in Russia when parliament could take on additional functions and assume greater responsibility. All we need is to give this idea serious thought.

As for competition in politics, 54 parties are registered in Russia, and four of them I believe are about to be dissolved. Still, 50 parties is a good number, and 12 of them operate at the federal level. I believe that this meets the standard for political competition.

My guess is that Putin will step down in 2024 with a chosen successor who will run successfully in the election. Putin, barring a serious breakdown in physical or cognitive health, will likely still have a strong advisory role behind the scenes.

Over the weekend, it was announced that a large prisoner exchange was successfully completed pursuant to the recent Normandy meeting. Democracy Now! reported the following details on December 30th:

Ukrainian government forces and Russia-backed separatists completed a prisoner swap Sunday in Eastern Ukraine. The office of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced at least 76 pro-government prisoners had been returned in exchange for over 120 pro-Russia detainees. Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed on the exchange during peace talks in Paris earlier this month.

Meanwhile, Reuters is reporting that a gas transit deal was finally reached between Ukraine and Russia’s Gazprom just before the current deal was set to expire December 31st.

MOSCOW/KIEV (Reuters) – Russian and Ukrainian companies signed a final five-year agreement safeguarding Russian gas transit to Europe via Ukraine, Kremlin-controlled gas giant Gazprom and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Monday night…

…The final deal on the Russian gas transit to Europe via Ukraine was finally sealed after the two countries initially agreed on the protocol on Dec. 20

Payment of $2.9 billion in legal damages by Russia to Ukraine on Friday was one of the key issues standing in the way of the gas deal. In response, Ukraine dropped more multibillion-dollar legal claims against Russia.

In response to an attack last Friday in Iraq that killed a U.S. military contractor and injured several U.S. servicemembers, the U.S. bombed Iraqi Shia militias known as Popular Mobilization Units (PMU’s), particularly one known as Ketaib Hezbollah, which it claimed was responsible for the Friday attack. The Iraq government warned Washington not to conduct the retaliatory attack, citing violation of Iraq’s sovereignty. The conflict has arisen amid a climate of relations that were already frayed as many of the recent popular protests in Iraq were partly an expression of disgust about perceived foreign control of the country by both the U.S. and neighboring Iran, in addition to domestic grievances. Common Dreams reported the following:

The U.S. strikes, which hit targets in Syria and Iraq, killed at least 25 people and injured dozens more.

The bombing campaign sparked swift condemnation from Iraqi leaders and warnings of a devastating proxy war between the U.S. and Iran, which the Trump administration says is funding and arming Iraqi militias.

Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi on Sunday called the U.S. strikes “a violation of Iraqi sovereignty and a dangerous escalation that threatens the security of Iraq and the region.”

Further reporting reveals Washington using the attacks in an apparent attempt to try to escalate tensions with Iran, claiming – without evidence – that Iran was behind the Friday attacks and that the PMU’s are proxies for Iran. This is in spite denials of responsibility and condemnation for the attack by Iran:

Following Sunday’s US attacks on Iraqi militia bases in western Iraq and eastern Syria, the US State Department is now saying that the attacks were a “defensive action,” and also were carried out as a “warning” against neighboring Iran.

As the U.S. bombing further inflamed tensions in Iraq, angry protesters stormed the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, forcing embassy staff to flee the building.

Trump is publicly blaming this turn of events on Iran also, stating in a tweet:

“Iran killed an American contractor, wounding many,” Trump tweeted. “We strongly responded, and always will. Now Iran is orchestrating an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. They will be held fully responsible. In addition, we expect Iraq to use its forces to protect the Embassy, and so notified!”

Yesterday, Iran completed four days of joint naval maneuvers with Russia and China off the coast of Iran in the Gulf of Oman. According to the WSWS:

The chief of the Iranian fleet participating in the exercise, Rear Admiral Gholamreza Tahani, said that its purpose was to demonstrate the close relations between Iran, Russia and China. “The message of this exercise is peace, friendship and lasting security through cooperation and unity, and its effect will be to show that Iran cannot be isolated,” Tahani said. He added, “Us hosting these powers shows that our relations have reached a meaningful point and may have an international impact.”

The Israeli government didn’t miss an opportunity to lobby for war against Iran on the eve of the maneuvers:

As Russian warships arrived in Iran [last] Wednesday, Israel’s Army Chief of Staff Aviv Kohavi called for military action against Iran. “It would be better if we weren’t the only ones responding to them,” Kohavi said, in what the Times of Israel called a rebuke to Washington, the Saudi monarchy and other Persian Gulf oil sheikdoms for not attacking Iran earlier. Kohavi added that Israeli forces would operate openly as well as clandestinely across the area, “even at the risk of war.”

Representatives of both Russia and China sought to downplay tensions while insisting that the maneuvers were meant only to increase stability in the region and cooperation among the three nations:

Russian and Chinese officials guardedly expressed concern over possible war and their support for Iran. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said: “We are dealing with the issues of maintaining stability in the region, security and the fight against terrorism. This co-operation and interaction are built on both a bilateral and multilateral basis but exclusively on a legal basis.”

Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Wu Qian said, “The drill will deepen exchange and cooperation between the navies of the three countries.” Wu called the exercises “normal military-to-military co-operation,” adding that they were “not necessarily connected with the regional situation,” an apparent reference to the risk of a US war of aggression against Iran.

In the event that the U.S. and/or Israel were to attack Iran, I think it would be unlikely for Russia or China to directly intervene in fighting. However, both countries, especially Russia, would go into overdrive diplomatically to de-escalate the situation. If that failed, then either or both countries may provide indirect support to Iran. Both China and the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union are heavily invested in the New Silk Road/Belt-and-Road Initiative (BRI) which seeks to connect Asia, Europe and the Middle East in an economic and trade consortium. Iran is viewed as a critical hub in this program. Therefore, peace and stability is the primary goal of all three nations. Conversely, certain strategists in Washington would be just fine with keeping the region de-stabilized in order to prevent the successful viability of BRI, which would represent more strengthening of the region while the U.S. declines as the lone superpower.

I was watching a video by one of my favorite political analysts recently – it involved a discussion of Turkey’s role in NATO. At one point in the video, she started talking about some hypothetical situations that would have implications for NATO and mentioned “Russia taking the Baltics” as one of them. It was then that I knew she was getting over her skis, as they say.

Of course, she’s not the only one to repeat this myth about Russia potentially having designs on the three small Baltic nations on its northwestern border: Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. So let’s take a look at why the idea of Russia taking over the Baltic nations is a ridiculous notion.

First, as you can see from the map above, Russia has more territory than it knows what to do with. Trust me, they don’t need or want more territory.

Second, Russia already has plenty of resources to exploit for the next several decades, at least.

Third – and this is not intended to be offensive to anyone living in or from the Baltic nations – but they don’t have any resources to speak of and have a lot of economic problems. They aren’t exactly bright, shiny objects that a neighbor couldn’t resist coveting.

Therefore, if Russia were to take over the Baltic nations, it would be taking on an economic liability, it would be forced to try to govern over populations that would be openly hostile, and it would face even stronger international condemnation and sanctions. Tell me again why they would want to do this?

Now here is where some people might try to push another fallacy to support this one: Russia has shown that it is an aggressor with respect to Georgia and Ukraine. For anyone who still believes these assertions, please take a look at the 2009 EU report on the Georgian-Russian War of 2008. It concludes that Georgia started the war with military incursions into South Ossetia which killed Russian peacekeepers. Russia responded militarily. One can debate whether Russia’s military response was disproportionate or not, but it is demonstrably untrue to assert that Russia started it and was therefore the aggressor.

With respect to the Ukraine crisis, there was a provocative coup supported by the west in 2014 that removed a democratically elected leader in Kiev, which led to dangers against the Russian speaking populations in Donbas and Crimea. It also was a perceived threat to Russia’s naval base in Sevastopol. For a more in-depth deconstruction of what happened, please see my articles here and here. For a more in-depth discussion of what happened specifically with Crimea, please see the article I wrote based on my travels to Crimea and interviews with a cross-section of Crimeans about the events that took place there in 2013-2014. These articles show that Russia reacted to events but did not initiate them and was not the aggressor.

It should also be noted that Russia reacting strongly to these events was entirely predictable to anyone who had any substantive knowledge about Russia and wasn’t completely blinded by ideology. Georgia and, particularly, Ukraine in NATO is a red line for Russia’s national security interests. This has nothing to do with Putin personally. It has to do with Russia’s history and geography.

Russia does not have natural barriers like oceans and mountain ranges and consequently it has historically experienced numerous invasions. The Mongols viciously invaded twice in the 13th century, Napoleon invaded in the early 19th century, and Hitler invaded in 1941. It is the Nazi invasion that is the most poignant to consider here as virtually all Russian families were affected and many currently living Russians have heard stories directly from relatives (parents, aunts/uncles, grandparents) about the Great Patriotic War as WWII is referred to in Russia.

The Soviet Union lost 27 million people as a result of WWII – the most of any country – including 17-19 million civilians. It also saw around 1/3 of its country destroyed. By comparison, the United States lost around 400,000 and saw no damage to its homeland. In Mein Kampf, Hitler had referred to Slavs as sub-human in addition to Jews. For more on what the Soviets experienced as a result of the Nazi invasion, see this previous post.

Both times the Germans invaded Russia in the 20th century (WWI and WWII), they came in through the Ukrainian corridor. No Russian leader – whether Putin or anyone else – would survive politically if they just sat there with their thumb up their rear while Ukraine joined NATO. From the Russian point of view, it is a national security imperative to oppose this.

Now, back to the Baltics. The only conceivable way that Russia would enter the Baltics is if one or more of these nations became a battleground as the result of NATO attack against Russia. While NATO is a hostile military alliance that keeps needling Russia by expanding up to its borders, it’s unlikely that NATO would intentionally attack Russia, but mistakes or miscommunications can easily lead to dangerous escalations, particularly if they occur within the backdrop of tensions that have been continuously stoked to score domestic political points.

So who benefits from this myth that Russia wants to take over the Baltics? First of all, it’s a NATO talking point that provides justification for its existence. It also provides justification for continued weapons sales to the Baltics and other Eastern European countries that must keep up with NATO requirements – thus, feeding the voracious appetite of the military-industrial complex for profits. The political class in the Baltic countries are all too happy to go along with this because flogging the anti-Russia theme – easily exploiting historical grievances against Russia – is much easier than making the tough decisions required to actually solve the Baltic countries’ internal problems (e.g. economic).

One way to think of the NATO mentality metaphorically is with the song “Bad Bad Leroy Brown.” Some of you may remember this hit song from the 1970’s by Jim Croce. For those of you who don’t, you can listen to it here to refresh your memory. The gist of it is that Leroy Brown is the neighborhood bad-ass, a show-off bully, who’s got everyone running scared. But he eventually meets his match – someone who stomps a mud hole in his backside and puts him in his place. Everyone lives happily ever after. The end.

Now it may sound like I’m trying to be funny and I am, partly. But this is pretty close to the kind of primitive and self-reverential thinking that goes on in Washington and NATO headquarters. They want to keep everyone believing that Russia is Bad Bad Leroy Brown and that NATO is the hero who is an even bigger (but benevolent) bad-ass who will keep Russia in its place.

This is the story-line that is necessary to keep NATO in business, maintain Washington’s dominant role over Europe, and to keep profits flowing for defense contractors.

Well, it’s unfortunate, but the more Yang talks about foreign policy, the more he reinforces my misgivings about him as expressed in this blog post from a few months ago.

While at a recent campaign stop, Yang reiterated his Yang Doctrine as criteria for foreign intervention. He also said he thought that Syria might fit the criteria. If you click on the link embedded below (for those receiving this by email), you can hear this short part of his talk. Personally, I had to stop myself from banging my head on the table. This guy is not improving as he goes.

<

When asked about when he would support foreign intervention, @AndrewYang lays out a three part test:

1. American natl interest at stake or ability to “avert humanitarian catastrophe”

2. Clear timeline

3. Support from allies

Says he thinks Syria would meet requirements pic.twitter.com/SmIy22qTJ6

— Eugene Daniels (@EugeneDaniels2) December 11, 2019

/p>

Note that he mentions the usual “exceptionalist” buzzwords like “spreading our values” and supporting “human rights,” but says nothing about international law and the fact that, in the absence of a UN mandate, such an intervention would be just as illegal as Iraq, which he has admitted was a disastrous mistake. So it sounds to me like Yang’s objection to a foreign intervention has little to do with legality or the morality of using our powerful military – whose purpose is to break things and kill people – to effect regime change or to ostensibly solve “humanitarian” problems – as if our military is the fire department or paramedics.

He also does not address how he would ensure that he would not be embarking on the most grave policy decision a president can make based on faulty information. While this was only a snippet from his talk, I’d make book on him not mentioning the implications of the OPCW whistleblowers who have exposed the agency’s report on the Douma chemical weapons allegations as false. He’s either unaware of it or is ignoring it – both of which imply that he is not ready for prime time as commander in chief. He also makes no mention of the problem of portions of the intelligence agencies politicizing information as they did in the run-up to Iraq.

In a recent interview with Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper on the Useful Idiots podcast, Yang talked about how his policy views have been shaped and how he came to be an advocate for UBI. What sparked his transformation in thinking was his reading of a particular book. It makes me wonder what books, if any, Yang is reading on foreign policy. Sadly, based on his comments on Syria, my guess is that it would probably be something from Samantha Power rather than something from John Mearsheimer.

The bottom line is that, based on Yang’s shallow and amateurish thinking on foreign policy, he would easily get sucked into the “Blob” vortex under the more noble patina of “humanitarian intervention” as opposed to overt neoconservative militarism. But, as readers of my work know, it is merely a difference in packaging as the product is still the same – regime change wars that are illegal, immoral, wasteful and ultimately counter-productive with the instability they foster. See Libya as exhibit A.

It sounds like Tulsi needs to have a chat with her friend Yang to set him straight on this “humanitarian intervention” nonsense:

I could see Yang as an adviser or in a cabinet position related to economic or energy policy. His UBI idea – if it is combined with Medicare for All – could be a game-changer for many Americans who are struggling and are stuck in bad jobs. But a hard pass for Yang as president based on his dangerous foreign policy.