Strange Times Are These

When conspiracy theories don’t sound so crazy.

By
13

Dear Reader (and those interested in advertising the Sussex Royal brand on my podcast),

So at The Dispatch—up and fully running for three days now—we talk a lot about being fact-driven and opposed to hot takes, click bait, and conspiracy mongering. 

Three days of that is probably enough. So, here’s a completely unsubstantiated, unverified, and probably unlikely theory inspired in part from some chatter I heard at my cigar shop.

Suleimani was set up by the Iranians. He was too much of a hot head, growing his own power base independent of the mullahs and making it harder for Iran to get out from underneath sanctions. The Iranian leadership couldn’t stop him from conducting a series of dangerously provocative terror attacks, so they basically gave him to the Americans in exchange for … something. I’m not sure what, but maybe withdrawal from Iraq.  

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
13
By
Comments (13)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Mark Belanger

    I don't get the furor about "imminent" or, really, any of the specifics. The best reason for the drone strike was multiple targets in a known spot at a known time.

    The big question is why Suleimani was outside the borders of Iran in the first place. Being one of the highest ranking officers in their military with the responsibilities and programs he ran an incredibly high value target, and for him to leave the security of his national borders speaks to something incredibly unusual about the circumstances.

    So. He was outside the protective borders of his country in the company of other terrorist leaders, including one recently involved in assaults on American military personnel and our Baghdad embassy. This constitutes a rare and valuable opportunity to take a number of bad actors off the board.

    Why was he there? Maybe some kind of imminent threat; maybe a celebration of past actions, maybe just touching base with his terrorist buddies. I honestly do not understand the obsession with "imminent". The people we took out in the strike were either legitimate targets because of known past acts or they weren't. If they were taken out because they were planning something AND had never done anything in the past to make them legitimate target then what their plans were and how imminent are the heart of any decision to declare them as targets.

    But that is not the case; these men had a history of bad acts. They earned their designation as legitimate targets without reference to what they might be planning in the future.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Earl King

    As the Buddhist farmer said “We’ll shall see” with regard to Iran.
    Congress has become a frozen permafrost of partisanship. Especially when your side must win or the other side must lose. It’s reached a zenith the past couple of decades. Compromise is gone. Pelosi says she has passed 275 bi-partisan bills. Doubtful with 100 GOP votes. Pelosi cannot lose 12 votes, that’s roughly the margin to get to 218 ish votes. Their are 12 nutty leftist that do not believe in “compromise” The same in prior GOP Congress under Ryan. The Frozen caucus. CA fights every Trump initiative via Liberal Judges. More Frozen resistance. If hopefully Trump gets re-elected SCOTUS will be still be busy. As for killing terrorist? We should constrain the President. Drone attacks are not going to war. Libya, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan were’ going to War. So was Syria. The only way to stop this is to force Congress to vote on it. What President is going to do that?

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    td12212

    Iran knows it's the underdog in this fight so a direct confrontation was never in its best interest. They will work diligently to get Iraq to throw out the US. Iran will then control a shia dominated crescent of influence from the Mediterranean (Lebanon, Syria) to the Persian gulf.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Like PRK, it's wrong to view Iran as an "underdog" when, while we have 1000% of the weapons necessary to annihilate them, we have about 10% of the political will to do so. It's Iran that is holding more of the cards here, as underscored by the fact that they seem to be able to harass their enemies at will and make incremental tactical gains without sparking a broader war.

      And on the home political front, Trump winning the presidency in 2016 has been the best possible thing for them since he continually beats the drum of "leaving the Middle East", helping to get that 10% number down to say 0%, and his abandonment of Syria and turning of the Kurds into our blood enemies has helped Iran immensely as well.

      We would be in a much stronger position strategically with Iran had Hillary won in 2016.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        WKDawson

        I remember you from NRO. I assumed "riot" was a nom de guerre, but maybe not.

        My take is "wait and see" on this one. Jonah doesn't say that everything is hunky-dory, just that if this is all Iran does, it means they are not really all that angry about Suleimani being out of the picture. If so, it is not clear exactly why, but the optimistic view is that Iran actually wants to negotiate with the US. Of course, the pessimistic picture is that they will have a long memory and the unknown unknowns that come with that. Unfortunately, pessimism never disappoints. Anyway, it seems too early to say what the mix of good and bad consequences will be, but maybe there is a remote chance that some people in the high places actually made a smart move or, before things went completely south, came into the office with "the papers", said "Silencio!" and rescued our behinds.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          The way things stand, pressure is building (thanks to Trump) for the US to leave Iraq, which would be a bonanza for Iran. The correct move for them right now is to sit tight and wait, which would explain their response as well. In the mean time they can continue doing what they were doing before. Oh, and also ramp up the new guy on his new job.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            td12212

            I agree. I suspect this what they will do. This is their neighborhood not ours. When Saddam was removed from power Iraq quickly reverted to it's native state of being a Shia country.

            Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    Putin needs killing too. That doesn't mean it's wise for the United States to partake in that.

    Now, I could be proven wrong if Iran's proxy wars stop now. But does anybody actually believe there will be any difference on the ground? If so, can you explain the different strategic trajectory resulting from this killing?

    And while you're at it, can you tell me why this was so much better than say bombing a bunch of strategic military assets that would reduce Iran's war-making capabilities and cost them a lot of money to replace and NOT empower the American-hating hard-liners there?

    Mr. Goldberg, are you *sure* you are not just going along with Trump here because you are trying to keep a pinky toe in the mainstream Republican universe?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Also, editing. We need editing. Making people type everything perfectly the first time has gone the way of cursive writing.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Butch Earl

    Good luck attempting to restrain and/or restore the proper constitutional checks and balances in Washington, DC. Paul Ryan was well on his way to a bright future until he uttered those obscene words "regular order." Yes, it was in the context of House of Representatives procedures but, I was hoping those two words would become a rallying cry for those of us who like our government to be as boringly traditional as possible.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Mark Mazow

    It's not a far fetched conspiracy theory. I agree with you that it's not likely the case, but it's not in Alex Jones territory . Another good G-File if only a brief one this week.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Kevin Durant?

    “Gracie is also super needy. And, in the most shocking development in feline affairs in decades, Ralph is even being nice to me.”
    ———————————
    While I know this field has been plowed many times, I must weigh in

    Cats are garbage

    It’s not just that they are basically rats and they turn your house into the Super Dome circa Hurricane Katrina. No, it’s more than that

    They are finicky with their affection. THIS is the problem

    I don’t want a pet so that I can have extra work. I’m not insane. I want unconditional love that is not available in the human sphere. Hence, DOGS

    If I wanted to add another jousting match of emotional warfare to my daily schedule I would just befriend a schizophrenic. At least I would be helping a human

    Cats are the worst. They are basically just furry legged snakes that make a mess. Gross horrible NO

    Regarding Mike Lee:

    Great 100% accurate Constitutional point that I agree with entirely......and you made it in the most counterproductive useless way possible. But don’t worry, the Democrats will reward you for your consistency

    THEY WON’T

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Bruce Mamont

    I'm imagining a scene in Tehran, in which the Ayatollah grabs Suleimani's face in both hands, gives him a passionate kiss, and says "I know it was you Qasem-you broke my heart".

    Collapse