Soleimani assassination conspiracy?

I know there's an absolute mountain of threads on current events in Iraq/Iran etc but I thought I'd throw this into the mix.

I'm not one for starting threads but I've been thinking about the whole Soleimani assassination and how it has panned out and something struck me.

I'll freely admit that I have nothing to support this theory, it is only a random theory, and I'm not too sure I believe it myself so I'm asking others if they think it could be a possibility.

I firmly believe that most effective diplomacy goes on behind the scenes and we only get to know a small fraction of what actually happens.
I also believe that leaders of most countries regularly collude to get rid of mutual problems then release the predictable political/national rhetoric for domestic consumption.

I'd never heard of Soleimani until last week but I think its fair to say he was idolised back home in Iran and most western security/intelligence agencies were more than aware of him and his odious activities.
From what I've learnt of him I can't imagine any reasonably minded individual outside of Iran or the Middle East mourning his death.....in fact 'good riddance' is pretty fitting.

But as events unfurled it was pretty apparent that his killing could easily have led to a full scale major military confrontation - I guess it still might but its looking more and more unlikely.

It has been alleged that Soleimani was in Iraq in order to give a reply to some communication Iran had received from Saudi Arabia via the Iraqi Prime Minister.
It is rumoured that there was some sort of conciliatory approach from Saudi Arabia to Iran, possibly even at the behest of Trump, all designed at reducing tension in region.

When Soleimani landed in Iraq people were evacuated from the vicinity - on who's orders I don't know - and it was attacked via a US Military drone.

Iran expressed its outrage and promised reprisal attacks on USA interests etc.

Back home in Iran there is a huge outpouring of public grief and the crowds spew the usual and expected anti-American propaganda.
Last night missile attacks happen and Iran states it wants to write a line under the whole incident blah blah blah.

Lets just take a pause and consider some of the internal politics in Iran.
The Hojjiateh - a sect in Iran devoted to forcibly bringing about the return of the Mahdi - are rumoured to have infiltrated The Islamic Revolutionary Guard and are now in positions of power.

In addition Soleimani was revered in Iran but was considered a threat by some sections of the religious leaders who control Iranian politics and life in general.

Could they have somehow passed on the information of Soleimani's whereabouts - with or without US knowledge - with the deliberate intention of setting him up to be killed?
The usual slanging match occurs and the massively useless missile attacks are carried out.
They are spun as a massive insult and attack on the US back in Iran and the lack of response is viewed as a victory.
The masses are satisfied, the Mullahs have eliminated an enemy.

The lack of damage inflicted by the attack negates any need for Trump to retaliate further, the US has eliminated a serious opponent and has been seen to be aggressive in its approach to Iran.

A win/win?

As I said at the start, I have absolutely nothing to support this theory - and I'm not that sure I believe it myself - but does anyone think this is complete bollocks or what?
Feel free to rip it shreds.

I heard 5 trillion of oil was recently found in or around Iran, likely good reason to clean out the dead wood for better cooperation

a reply to: Freeborn

Iran's leadership is too prideful to sacrifice one of their own for ANY reason. They would much rather be leaders of martyrdom and sacrifice their entire country for the sake of their religion before they would sacrifice each other individually.

The "amount of damage" being nominal is no excuse to not "retaliate" because we have Iran directly (and by proxy) attacking U.S. military.

Sorry Iran, your leadership is dreck and they're dumb as rocks 😃

More economic sanctions are coming boys and maybe some real destruction of your national assets as well 😃

Get ready 😃

a reply to: Freeborn

Another angle is that elections are coming up in Iran and that this guy was running.

Perhaps he was too much of a loose cannon for the mullahs?

Consider the ease with which he was taken out after dodging all attempts for decades in what seems to have possibly been a setup, and the fact that reports are that there was back channel communication on just exactly how Iran was going to "retaliate" for his assassination.

They get to make their big show and save face while also removing a rival they could no longer control.

a reply to: Deetermined

Just like anywhere there are factions vying for control in Iran, even within the Mullahs themselves.

If Soleimani was as revered in Iran as we are led to believe could some of those Mullahs have viewed him as a threat to their control.

I've mentioned the Hojjiateh in several threads before and to understand the threat they might pose one has to understand Shia belief in The Mahdi.
en.wikipedia.org...

Most Shia, including the majority of the ruling Mullahs, believe that the Mahdi's emergence from occultation will occur within the natural course of events.
The Hojjiateh however are committed to forcibly bringing about the situation - generally believed to be major confrontation between the Muslim world and non-Muslim world - that will impel The Mahdi to reveal himself thereby heralding his reign prior to The Day of Judgement.

It is known that The Hojjiateh have infiltrated The Islamic Revolutionary Guard.
To what extent is disputed as is exactly how much influence they have - it was rumoured that Ahmadinejad had very close links with them.

I'm not saying Soleimani was one of them, but could easily have been.
And its very likely he was a threat to some within either or both of the Consultative Assembly and The Guardian Council.

Iran now seems remarkably keen to put an end to this whole episode whilst spinning it as a victory back at home.
And Trump is being unusually quiet at present.

This is pure speculation and I'm not saying it definitely happened, just wondering if its a possibility.

As with most things I suspect we'll never learn the whole truth.....but I have serious doubts about the current official version.

a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly.

And Trump is seen as taking a hard line on Iran.

A win/win.

a reply to: Freeborn

Trump specified "no more dead Americans" and no Americans died in the retaliation.

a reply to: Freeborn

He wasn't 'assassinated'. He was lawfully exterminated as a known terrorist. Therefor 'assassination' does not apply.

As for Soleimani being 'revered' in Iran? Not by the people he wasn't. Hasn't he just murdered 600 or so protesters? Yes, he had.

The lack of damage inflicted by the attack negates any need for Trump to retaliate further, the US has eliminated a serious opponent and has been seen to be aggressive in its approach to Iran.

The lack of damage inflicted was in fact due to Iran warning Iraq who warned America giving the US soldiers time to evacuate the targeted area. The very last thing Iran would have wanted was to even put a scratch a US citizen/soldier. They know that would be disastrous and something they wouldn't recover from for a long, long time.

I wouldn't call Iran a 'serious' opponent towards the US and neither does our President. But what I truly appreciate is President Trump including Iran in his plans to continue to wipe out ISIS - which is beneficial to both countries. Hopefully now that Iran has been granted a reprieve while they saved face with their people? Well, hopefully they'll grasp the firm hand of peace extended by President Trump and work together with the US against our common enemies.

peace

a reply to: Freeborn

That seems too complicated when Iran could have, and probably would have, taken him out covertly inside the country if he was a political threat. Having said that, Iran did get a lot of positive mileage out this at home. The propaganda machine was just refueled.

a reply to: silo13

He wasn't 'assassinated'. He was lawfully exterminated as a known terrorist. Therefor 'assassination' does not apply.

Splitting hairs here for no particular reason.

Legally exterminated?

Which Court of Law had found him guilty of terrorism and proclaimed a death penalty on him?

Don't get me wrong, I think the world is a much better place for his death and I'll not be sheading any tears over his demise.

Nothing to get to hung up over though.....I think most of us are more or less on the same side over this.

As for Soleimani being 'revered' in Iran? Not by the people he wasn't. Hasn't he just murdered 600 or so protesters? Yes, he had.

He was in some quarters.
Much the same as many people of his ilk.

The lack of damage inflicted was in fact due to Iran warning Iraq who warned America giving the US soldiers time to evacuate the targeted area. The very last thing Iran would have wanted was to even put a scratch a US citizen/soldier. They know that would be disastrous and something they wouldn't recover from for a long, long time.

Which in itself lends support to the theory that much of this was contrived.

But what I truly appreciate is President Trump including Iran in his plans to continue to wipe out ISIS - which is beneficial to both countries. Hopefully now that Iran has been granted a reprieve while they saved face with their people? Well, hopefully they'll grasp the firm hand of peace extended by President Trump and work together with the US against our common enemies.

Indeed.
Only one problem with all of that.....Saudi Arabia; a state that sponsors, funds, exports and supports more Islamic terrorism than ANY other nation in the world and a sworn enemy of Iran.....and big pals with the USA.

Got to run....its pub o'clock.

a reply to: Freeborn

First I'd like to say, I love how you prefaced your OP in the first few paragraphs, and completely agree with the 4th regarding the behind the scenes vs what we're "fed."

Despite understanding why this happens, its still frustrating - I want to know the actual story behind everything, but if I know, then everyone knows.

I think its part of why I despise all the politicians and "news" people - they're all lying to us. Sometimes they don't know they are, but often its because they have to, for our own good - sounds terrible, doesn't it? But its true! LOL

As for your theory, I feel as though there's a larger orchestration with the whole thing. What it is, I have no clue, but I'd say your at least on the right track that there's more to it than a simple "he orchestrated the largely-toothless embassy attack, and then we killed him." Just not sitting as anywhere near the whole story with me. It could be what happened, but it could also be that he was led into it, or even further, that we were led into the assassination. Or maybe we set him up to be where we wanted him.

Something is up, I think if it leads down a path toward anythig significant, we'll be a bit closer to understanding. I'm thinking ofnit as steps 1 & 2 in a plan that maybe 20 steps.

a reply to: Freeborn

I doubt there's much 3D chess going on here with foreign policy. I think Trump is just being reckless. And the Mullahs are just trying to save face with their subjects.

There's probably no rhyme or reason for killing Salami other than Trump wanted to prove out his bravado.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Not a chance. It might not be a real "long game", but it wasn't as simple as "hey guys, let's drone Sulemani!"

It most likely wasn't Trump's idea either. Even if it wasn't an elaborate orchestrated series of events, this was certainly something that had been in the works, and likely has a long Intelligence trail behind it.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Freeborn

I doubt there's much 3D chess going on here with foreign policy. I think Trump is just being reckless. And the Mullahs are just trying to save face with their subjects.

There's probably no rhyme or reason for killing Salami other than Trump wanted to prove out his bravado.

Yeah, Trump just woke up the other day and thought "who can I kill today?"

Really? I know you hate the man but come on. Despite what the Left says about his intelligence, Trump is extremely smart when it comes to strategy. You don't become a billionaire over the years by being stupid. Regardless of the fact that his father started him out, he still had to learn how to negotiate the corporate waters which are full of sharks.

What I'm pretty sure happened was intelligence came in saying Soleimani was in Iraq looking over his work on the embassy and Trump was advised by the military leaders to order the strike. That wouldn't have been a difficult situation for me either. Legal? Yep, based on what several different sources have said about how it went down. Plausible? Who knows? I honestly don't care. That terrorist is gone and he won't kill any more Americans. That's good enough for me.

a reply to: dogstar23

Thank you.

I'm almost certain there's more to this than we are being told.
Exactly what I don't know, and probably never will.
I fully endorse total transparency in government but I'm also a bit of a realist and understand that some things will always be on a need to know basis.
It's the spin and the lies that piss me off, in some ways I'd much rather 'them' say "we're not telling you all the story, end of".....it might annoy and frustrate me but at least I'd know where I stand.

There's just far too much of this that simply fell into place for there not to be as you put it a certain amount of orchestration involved.

It suits Trump, Iran seems to be happy with the outcome and world is minus one huge piece of crap.

Other than our natural suspicious nature and desire to know everything maybe we should just be happy with the outcome?

a reply to: dfnj2015

I have serious misgivings about Trump at times but I honestly don't think he's been 'reckless' in this instance.

As events were unfolding I was concerned about how Trump would react and really thought his impulsiveness could result in a major military confrontation.

But after the usual rhetoric etc he showed caution and became quite muted.
He did just enough to satisfy his domestic audience......same as Iran has done.

And I think its quite telling that Russia, China and Israel were all remarkably muted on things.

I suspect that maybe a thorn in everyone's side may have been removed.....good bloody riddance!

a reply to: Freeborn

Stars and Flags.

Its an interesting premise. Yes, I am fairly versed on Iran so I was aware of the Quds force and its leadership but Ill bet your right 95% of the US had nary a clue who he was till he was killed

While some have taken umbrage in my thread about the killing, he was a very popular (perhaps too popular) and charismatic leader for many Iranians so Its not inconceivable that the ruling Clerics feared he had too much power and either actively let this happen or at the very least passively allowed it

On the other hand, he did travel quite openly and operated without the usual cover one would expect from someone running a radical Islamic armed force and coordinator of terror attacks.

More of the usual empty rhetoric from Iran aimed directly at their people.
www.bbc.co.uk...

I did notice that the militia groups who had personnel killed alongside Soleimani have promised revenge attacks.
It'll be interesting to see if Iran can hold them in check as I'm certain the USA will hold them directly responsible if they can not do so.

As a slight aside; I've never professed to have more than a rudimentary understanding of the American political system but I really think its dangerous for Congress to handicap the swiftness of US retaliation to any attack by Iran by insisting that Congress has to give assent prior to any response.
Surely there could well be situations where The Commander-In-Chief has to react promptly and without it necessarily being public knowledge.

I thought with all the checks and balances and other safeguards in place there are already protocols in place to prevent anything catastrophic from happening?

It is not the why he was killed but why now? He has been doing this for decades. He was sold out by someone and I would think it was either IRG or PMF who did it to take his place. Not the mullahs. He did their bidding. A lackey in no uncertain terms for over 20 years.

Who had the most to gain by him dying? It was not Trump and the US.