ADVERTISEMENT

Did Obama Strike a Deal with Qassem Suleimani in 2015?

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
45,542
22,066
113
Here's an article from 2015 that makes that argument:

"According to the terms of the Iran deal announced in Vienna on Tuesday, U.N. Security Council sanctions regarding nuclear-related issues will be lifted on a number of entities and individuals—from Iranian banks to Lebanese assassins, like Anis Nacacche. The name that most sticks out is IRGC-Quds Force commander Qassem Suleimani. Administration officials counsel calm, and explain that Suleimani is still on the U.S. terror list and will remain on the terror list. But that’s irrelevant. The reality is that Suleimani is the key to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

* * * * * * *

Obama likes Suleimani, and admires his work. As the president reportedly told a group of Arab officials in May, the Arabs 'need to learn from Iran’s example.'

In fact, they need to take a page out of the playbook of the Qods Force — by which [Obama] meant developing their own local proxies capable of going toe-to-toe with Iran’s agents and defeating them. The president seemed to marvel at the fact that from Hezbollah to the Houthis to the Iraqi militias, Iran has such a deep bench of effective proxies willing to advance its interests. Where, he asked, are their equivalent on the Sunni side? Why, he wanted to know in particular, have the Saudis and their partners not been able to cultivate enough Yemenis to carry the burden of the fight against the Houthis? The Arabs, Obama suggested, badly need to develop a toolbox that goes beyond the brute force of direct intervention. Instead, they need to, be subtler, sneakier, more effective — well, just more like Iran.

The author argues Obama sought to enlist Suleimani's help in defeating ISIS and stabilizing both Iraq and Syria.

[T]he White House thinks, with Syria, where Iran can manage the inevitable transition, after Assad steps aside, thanks to the Iranians, or is killed. The way Obama sees it, the Quds Force can be the administration’s boots on the ground.
All this was done while American blood had not yet dried on Suleimani's hands. If this is accurate, we have a whole new level of collusion, administration disingenuousness and incompetence. The circumstantial evidence corroborates this; such as, removing the personal sanctions and travel restrictions imposed on Suleimani, the lifting of the UN arms embargo, the payment by delivering hard currency, and the warning of Israeli plans to assassinate Suleimani.
 
Am I reading that wrong? It sounds like we judged ISIS a bigger threat than Iran and as such hoped to ally with Iran to defeat ISIS. This sounds pretty close to me to what Churchill said about allying with Stalin, that if Hitler invaded hell, he (Churchill) would put in a positive word to parliament for the devil.
 
Remember when Obama struck the Iran deal which Mattis testified Iran was complying with and was working well, and then Trump decided that he'd rather score a win over Obama (in his mind) than ensure the continued safety of our country?

I would think it would make everybody mad that our president cares more about his ego than about our safety, but crazy times we live in I guess
 
Last edited:
Am I reading that wrong? It sounds like we judged ISIS a bigger threat than Iran and as such hoped to ally with Iran to defeat ISIS. This sounds pretty close to me to what Churchill said about allying with Stalin, that if Hitler invaded hell, he (Churchill) would put in a positive word to parliament for the devil.
Just when I thought COH had hit bottom, he pulled out his shovel and dug some more.
 
Why bother asking COH what his thoughts are? Just look at Trump's Twitter account.

Is there another option, like gouging my eyes out?

Are you watching the women's game tonight? If so, again I am the guy in the red sweater.
 
Why bother asking COH what his thoughts are? Just look at Trump's Twitter account.

Oh, let me say I have no idea what the Iran solution is. But I think ISIS was a bigger threat to the US. And I know we will have to give something up in any negotiation. That last statement of fact seems to be extremely unpopular.
 
Am I reading that wrong? It sounds like we judged ISIS a bigger threat than Iran and as such hoped to ally with Iran to defeat ISIS. This sounds pretty close to me to what Churchill said about allying with Stalin, that if Hitler invaded hell, he (Churchill) would put in a positive word to parliament for the devil.
Oh, let me say I have no idea what the Iran solution is. But I think ISIS was a bigger threat to the US. And I know we will have to give something up in any negotiation. That last statement of fact seems to be extremely unpopular.

In 2012, Obama announced that if Assad used chemical weapons, that would cross a red line and we would forcibly respond. Assad did just that and killed more than 1,000 civilians outside of Damascus. Obama didn't respond.

Early in 2014, Obama called ISIS (ISIL) the J.V.

A little over a year later, Obama admitted at the G7 conference that we and the allies had no strategy to confront ISIS.

Also in 2015, Obama, in an Air Force One interview, described his foreign policy as "don't do stupid shit."

All of this shows that Obama had no plans and no strategy about the Middle East. Except for his ongoing negotiations about the Iranian nukes. The link suggests that the sanctions imposed on Suleimani and the arms embargo were a far more important part of the negotiations than what was publicly disclosed. No doubt Obama was concerned about ISIS. He had bragged that "extremism" was no longer after OBL's death. The ISIS march across Syria and Iraq belied his narrative. Assad and his Iranian supporters and masters had a common interest with us in fighting ISIS. That was commonly reported and known. The reporting at the time was that our air strikes were in coordination with some Iranian and Assad operations. Fine so far. But I think the gist of the link I provided goes far beyond battlefield coordination. It suggests that Obama and Suleimani were reaching agreements never brought into the public sphere and never part of the public discussion. Several in the senate opposed the part of the agreement that relieved Suleimani of his personal sanctions. Ben Rhodes bragged that he was able to bend public opinion about to the Iranian nuke deal at will. I have no way of knowing if Obama intended to provide aid to Suleimani. But it is an explanation for the hasty lifting of the arms embargo and the payoff in currency. This seems to be a well thought out deception or a huge display of incompetence. Suleimni's role in perpetuating the Iraq fighting and dying was well known at the time.
 
Hearing this from a Trump supporter is absolutely hilarious

Here's what Obama said in the fall of 2018.

For example, I look at something, a place like Syria, where, despite our best efforts — and this is something Angela [Merkel] and I worked on a lot — you still have a vicious war taking place. You still have millions of people displaced, hundreds of thousands killed. And it is gonna require, I think, everything we can do to recognize that what happens on the other side of the world or these other countries, whether it’s in Africa or Asia or Latin America, that it has an impact on us, and that we’re gonna have to be invested in trying to help those countries achieve peace and prosperity. And, as president, I did not always have the tools that I wanted to effect those kinds of changes, but at least we tried. And part of the goal here is, if you try long enough, eventually what President Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature,” I think, can win out.
Obama always thought his best efforts were his speeches. That didn't work out. I think Obama admits his failure here. Syria was a total mess when he left office. Trump made it better, but not great. Trump taking Sulemani out of the picture gives the region a chance to improve the situations in Iraq, Gaza, Yemen and maybe in other places.
 
Iran was hemmed in for a long time by an enemy country next door to it. Bush eliminated that country as an anti-Iran counter. So if you want the real reason Iran became free to export terror, look to the president that eliminated the natural predator to Iran.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bawlmer and MaxCoke
Suleimni's role in perpetuating the Iraq fighting and dying was well known at the time.

Now Trump's role in Americans needlessly fighting and dying because of his stupid remarks will soon become well known and top any dumbass conspiracy theories the GOP can invent to smear Obama.

Trump's entire Presidency is all about undoing whatever Obama did in office, no matter how fact-based and sound many of Obama's policies were, and replacing it with ignorance, BS and lies! Did you see that Trump's own appointed EPA Science advisory board ripped his environmental policies to shreds for being totally against 50 years of solid science on streams and would be destructive? A COMPLETE FOOL!

And now Iran is working on nuclear weapons development again. How is Trump going to stop what he started? With 10,000 more US lives? NK's nuke program is progressing nicely under Trump's watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaxCoke
Now, all Trump just does is "stupid shit".

Bush thought he could save Iraq by throwing out the bad guys and occupying until democracy happened. It didn't work. Obama thought he could save Libya by having the bad guy murdered in a horrible fashion and the people would start a democracy. It didn't work. Obama thought he could save Syria by huffing and puffing about red lines and proclaiming "Assad has got to go". It didn't work as he called a committee meeting and then retreated behind the "don't do stupid shit" curtain. Trump begins by drawing bright lines between good guys and bad guys, and if the bad guys do stupid shit, then and only then do missiles fly and bombs fall.

The Trump doctrine appears to be to only react when others do stupid shit or attack us. Iran attacked and burned a Saudi oil refinery. Trump did nothing. Iran shot down an American drone, Trump thought about retaliating but did not. Iran attacked our facility, killed one and maimed many, Trump responded with an air strike which cost more Iranian lives. Iran attacked and burned the United States embassy in Baghdad, Trump killed the commander who ordered it. These people yammering about more boots on the ground and WWIII don't see what is going on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
Iran was hemmed in for a long time by an enemy country next door to it. Bush eliminated that country as an anti-Iran counter. So if you want the real reason Iran became free to export terror, look to the president that eliminated the natural predator to Iran.

Iran started it's belligerent policy during the Carter administration. Syria became a client state. Iranian funded and armed surrogates took over Lebanon. Israel was under attack from Gaza. Sure, Iran seized an opportunity in Iraq, but Saddam's fall didn't turn Iran into a menace. If you want to play what if, If we hadn't caused Saddam's downfall, Iran would probably have done the job anyway given the way the Shiites were being destroyed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
Iran started it's belligerent policy during the Carter administration. Syria became a client state. Iranian funded and armed surrogates took over Lebanon. Israel was under attack from Gaza. Sure, Iran seized an opportunity in Iraq, but Saddam's fall didn't turn Iran into a menace. If you want to play what if, If we hadn't caused Saddam's downfall, Iran would probably have done the job anyway given the way the Shiites were being destroyed.

Our real problem with Iran goes back to 1953. We screwed up and we've never been able to get on the right side of the curve. In the 50s and 60s we backed a lot of "bad hombres" in the name of anticommunism.
 
Obama did in office, no matter how fact-based and sound many of Obama's policies were, and replacing it with ignorance, BS and lies!

Perhaps you can explain to me Obama's fact based and sound Syrian policy.

And now Iran is working on nuclear weapons development again.

Do you really believe they stopped? The "deal" did not include meaningful snap inspections, it did not require dismantling nuke facilities nor did it halt ICBM development. In fact the deal re-invigorated the Iranian terror issue by removing sanctions from Suleimani, lifting the arms embargo, and delivering huge amounts of currency which is only useful to fund terror groups outside of Iran.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
Do you really believe they stopped? The "deal" did not include meaningful snap inspections, it did not require dismantling nuke facilities nor did it halt ICBM development. In fact the deal re-invigorated the Iranian terror issue by removing sanctions from Suleimani, lifting the arms embargo, and delivering huge amounts of currency which is only useful to fund terror groups outside of Iran.

Here is the February 2019 IAEA report. Where does it suggest Iran was not in compliance?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoosboot
In 2012, Obama announced that if Assad used chemical weapons, that would cross a red line and we would forcibly respond. Assad did just that and killed more than 1,000 civilians outside of Damascus. Obama didn't respond.

Early in 2014, Obama called ISIS (ISIL) the J.V.

A little over a year later, Obama admitted at the G7 conference that we and the allies had no strategy to confront ISIS.

Also in 2015, Obama, in an Air Force One interview, described his foreign policy as "don't do stupid shit."

All of this shows that Obama had no plans and no strategy about the Middle East. Except for his ongoing negotiations about the Iranian nukes. The link suggests that the sanctions imposed on Suleimani and the arms embargo were a far more important part of the negotiations than what was publicly disclosed. No doubt Obama was concerned about ISIS. He had bragged that "extremism" was no longer after OBL's death. The ISIS march across Syria and Iraq belied his narrative. Assad and his Iranian supporters and masters had a common interest with us in fighting ISIS. That was commonly reported and known. The reporting at the time was that our air strikes were in coordination with some Iranian and Assad operations. Fine so far. But I think the gist of the link I provided goes far beyond battlefield coordination. It suggests that Obama and Suleimani were reaching agreements never brought into the public sphere and never part of the public discussion. Several in the senate opposed the part of the agreement that relieved Suleimani of his personal sanctions. Ben Rhodes bragged that he was able to bend public opinion about to the Iranian nuke deal at will. I have no way of knowing if Obama intended to provide aid to Suleimani. But it is an explanation for the hasty lifting of the arms embargo and the payoff in currency. This seems to be a well thought out deception or a huge display of incompetence. Suleimni's role in perpetuating the Iraq fighting and dying was well known at the time.

Why do we Americans think our military decisions can change events just because our military strength is unequaled?

Take Syria and Afghanistan/Iraq for examples.

In Syria we think if we had taken military action after drawing a red line, events would gone more favorably.

In Afghanistan/Iraq if only we had executed our invasion and occupation differently all would have turned out much better.

Finally rather than consider the possibility we cannot control events through military might we blame our lack of taking action , or taking the wrong action, on whomever was president at the time decisions were made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: twenty02
Our real problem with Iran goes back to 1953. We screwed up and we've never been able to get on the right side of the curve. In the 50s and 60s we backed a lot of "bad hombres" in the name of anticommunism.

That's a fair point for a different discussion. I don't think this explains Quods Force and the extensive Iranian surrogate terror throughout the Middle East and, as we now know, beyond.
 
Here is the February 2019 IAEA report. Where does it suggest Iran was not in compliance?

There were many loopholes. R&D into nuclear weapons, and how to mate those with their ICBMS was not prohibited.

Also, see & see.

The nuke portions of the JCPOA were going to expire in 6 years anyway. As my link above shows, there was more to the JCPOA than the nuclear terms. The Iranians by ramping up their surrogate wars of terror are in violation, if not the specific terms that led Obama to lift the arms embargo and sanctions on Suleimoni, the conditions implied in those actions.
 
Why do we Americans think our military decisions can change events just because our military strength is unequaled?

Take Syria and Afghanistan/Iraq for examples.

In Syria we think if we had taken military action after drawing a red line, events would gone more favorably.

In Afghanistan/Iraq if only we had executed our invasion and occupation differently all would have turned out much better.

Finally rather than consider the possibility we cannot control events through military might we blame our lack of taking action , or taking the wrong action, on whomever was president at the time decisions were made.

I agree with what I think your point is. We changed history with WWII, but for millions of reasons, that is not the proper analogy nowadays. In addition, negotiations and agreements are either useless, watered down, or routinely violated. I think Trump would also agree with you. His policy seems to be primarily reactionary. If the consequences of others doing stupid shit are immediate and strong, the stupid shit might stop.
 
There were many loopholes. R&D into nuclear weapons, and how to mate those with their ICBMS was not prohibited.

Also, see & see.

The nuke portions of the JCPOA were going to expire in 6 years anyway. As my link above shows, there was more to the JCPOA than the nuclear terms. The Iranians by ramping up their surrogate wars of terror are in violation, if not the specific terms that led Obama to lift the arms embargo and sanctions on Suleimoni, the conditions implied in those actions.

Those two articles describe breaches after we left the deal. We do not know if they were breaching the nuclear part before. No one has found it. It might be they were using the Iraqi mobile labs I guess.
 
I agree with what I think your point is. We changed history with WWII, but for millions of reasons, that is not the proper analogy nowadays. In addition, negotiations and agreements are either useless, watered down, or routinely violated. I think Trump would also agree with you. His policy seems to be primarily reactionary. If the consequences of others doing stupid shit are immediate and strong, the stupid shit might stop.

Do we really want countries getting bombed for doing "stupid shit"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
Those two articles describe breaches after we left the deal. We do not know if they were breaching the nuclear part before. No one has found it. It might be they were using the Iraqi mobile labs I guess.

I know that. The fact remains, the Mullahs made a big deal out of Suleimani's death as being the reason to abandon the deal. Not true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
I agree with what I think your point is. We changed history with WWII, but for millions of reasons, that is not the proper analogy nowadays. In addition, negotiations and agreements are either useless, watered down, or routinely violated. I think Trump would also agree with you. His policy seems to be primarily reactionary. If the consequences of others doing stupid shit are immediate and strong, the stupid shit might stop.

CoH, your post made me think as they often do.

I pondered over the fact that WWII changed history.

I concluded that in the short run, it obviously did. However over the five plus decades which followed, how do we know for sure what would have occurred without the war.

We presume such things as having to live under a Hitler fascist regime if there hadn't been a war. Whenever I hear this, I find myself perplexed by disbelieving the Nazi military could have invaded and occupied the U.S. even if Europe had not resisted.

Wars change a good many things. Nevertheless many more things don't change. Finally over time almost everything changes with human nature seemingly staying unchanged.
 
I guess that is situational. Clinton bombed Belgrade. Reagan bombed Tripoli. Both of those seemed to have been effective in terms of stopping the activity we wanted to stop.

For Belgrade we at least had NATO support. I am not opposed to the QS assassination, I'm not necessarily in favor of it. I don't know all the facts we based the decision on and I'm hardly an expert on international law. I do wish we had some allies on the action.
 
I guess that is situational. Clinton bombed Belgrade. Reagan bombed Tripoli. Both of those seemed to have been effective in terms of stopping the activity we wanted to stop.

Situational and strategic. If the goal was to exit Iraq sooner rather than later, then this may be have been effective strategy. If the goal was to further the mission to fight ISIS, then it's not clear that the killing helped as NATO is moving troops out and Iraq seems to be moving toward seeking troop withdrawals.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT