Iran Situation

[Dill]

(01-15-2020, 12:33 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You're right, the group wasn't labeled a terrorist organization until 2019. He personally was labeled in 2007, which is what I was thinking of.

He was labeled a terrorist not because ideals run in opposition, but because he introduced, armed, and trained terrorists in Iraq to use roadside bombs against US Troops. That's a pretty far cry from a mere clash of ideals.

Usually considered an act of war.

But usually high ranking officials from a sovereign country don't personally go to other countries and arm and train terrorists and militias to murder other countries troops.

The protection kind of gets washed away at that point. If Mark Esper personally flew to Hong Kong with a shitload of explosives and RPGs and armed, taught, and led the protesters how to effectively use them to kill pro-Chinese (and they murdered a shitton of civilians in the process) then Mark Esper wouldn't have the same protections as a high ranking official from a sovereign country.

Three quick points:

1. The Quds force was placed on a list of organizations subject to sanctions for "supporting" terrorism in 2007 by Bush. Solemeini was specifically named in the section which also designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as well. https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp644.aspx. From this it is not clear that Solemeini was personally designated a "terrorist" through three presidents--two of whom who clearly elected NOT to kill him. The more recent (2019) designation of the IRGC as itself a "terrorist organization" extends the reach of sanctions to more banks, pharmaceutical companies, shipping and construction companies. If you are a bank teller working for the Bank Mellat or Bank Soderat you may now be a "terrorist," forbidden to travel or transact business with any US firm.

Such is the nature of "terrorist" activity which singled out the Quds force for this designation in 2007: In 2001, their help was welcomed in the US fight the Taliban. When Bush flipped on them, they helped the Taliban. A little. They now pay money for killing US solidiers and destruction of vehicles, but it is not clear they provide much or any material support. A strong Taliban is not in their interest. They would be fighting them WITH us still, if not for the Neocons in Bush's cabinet, who wanted to take the war to Iran after Iraq. (Trump's recent NSC advisor, Bolton, was a relique of that era and policy).

2. Here again the overly broad term "terrorist" works the magic of a double standard.  From Iran's perspective, high ranking officials from the US, a sovereign country, do personally go to other countries and arm and train terrorists and militias to murder other countries troops, not to mention civilians.  Imagine if Iran were a world power with troops occupying Mexico and Canada and imposing sanctions on the US resulting in deaths of civilians. That would seem an act of war to most Americans.  How would Fox News be defining "terrorism" under such circumstances; what would they say if Iran took out the US Secretary of Defense while he was in Mexico, helping Mexicans resist Iranian control of their government?

3. The Chinese might not think Esper protected, but the US certainly would. So far as I can tell, so long as the US and China are not at war, they could not legally kill him unless he, himself, was "imminently" threatening Chinese troops or citizens.