theguardian--2020-01-04--'He was sent to us': at church rally, evangelicals worship God and Trump

They came to pray with their president , though in truth many came just to worship him .
Donald Trump ’ s Friday launch of his so-called “ coalition of evangelicals ” , an attempt to shore up the support of the religious right ahead of November ’ s election , had the feel of any other campaign rally , except this time with gospel music .
An estimated 7,000 “ supporters of faith ” packed the King Jesus international ministry megachurch in Miami to hear the word of the president , and decided that it was good .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comments on issues calculated to resonate with his churchgoing audience , including abortion , freedoms of speech and religion , and what he claimed was a “ crusade ” from Democrats against religious tolerance .
“ My administration will never stop fighting for Americans of faith , ” Trump said at the conclusion of an often freewheeling 75-minute speech .
“ We will restore the faith as the true foundation of American life.
” Trump also gloated about Thursday ’ s military strike that took out the Iranian general Qassem Suleimani in Baghdad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eliminated the terrorist ringleader , ” he said , insisting the killing would save the lives of “ hundreds and hundreds of Americans .
“ His atrocities have been stopped for good .
He was planning a very major attack and we got him.
” Absent from his remarks , however , was any discussion of one of his signature policies , the hardline crackdown on immigration that has seen thousands of undocumented migrants deported .
At this Hispanic megachurch , where even the pastor acknowledges many in his congregation are in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprise .
Trump did concede he had made it harder for foreigners to enter or stay in the US , but only to “ make sure foreign terrorists can not obtain admission ” .
It was exactly what evangelical Christians in the audience wanted to hear .
Some , like Michael David Layne , a 62-year-old US army veteran who regularly attends the King Jesus church , marries what he sees as Trump ’ s “ strong leadership ” with “ solid Christian values ” , which he said the president showed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We can get anybody , anywhere , anytime , anywhere there is terrorism , ” he said .
Layne acknowledges that Trump ’ s life – which includes three marriages , adultery and alleged affairs with porn stars – might appear less than pious , but is able to overlook it .
“ He might be a little rough around the edges for some people , but he says it like it is , and if some of the things he says or the actions he takes upset some people it doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of God.
” Others who came to hear Trump preach were similarly unfazed by the president ’ s questionable religious credentials .
“ I believe he has moral character and that he is a man of God , ” said Steven Johnson , 65 , from New Jersey .
“ I also believe that he believes people have to pick up the banner and do what ’ s right .
If you don ’ t pick up the banner then are you really Christian ?
“ It sickens me the people that say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re praying for people , but they ’ re stabbing them in the back .
It ’ s a shame .
We need a revival in this country and get back to common sense , moral values .
We ’ ve gone way off the deep end.
” The need for some kind of national restoration of faith was a topic Trump returned to more than once .
“ For America to thrive in the 21st century we must renew faith and family as the center of American life , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his speech .
“ Faith-based schools , charities , hospitals , adoption agencies , pastors were systematically targeted by federal bureaucrats and ordered to stop following their beliefs , ” he said , without evidence .
Friday ’ s rally , hastily organized in the wake of a stinging Christianity Today editorial last month , recognized Trump ’ s need to retain the loyalty of the evangelical voting bloc that propelled him to victory in 2016 .
Four years ago , he won 80 % backing from white evangelical voters nationwide .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and helped us in numbers never seen before .
We ’ re going to blow those numbers away in 2020 , ” Trump said .
“ I really believe we have God on our side.
” For Rose Ann Farrell , 74 , from Florida , the claim rang true .
“ I really believe he was sent to us , ” she said .
“ From one to ten , he ’ s a ten .
He lives in a Christian world and we needed a strong Christian , somebody who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has the guts and courage to speak what we want to say .
His actions , his intentions , are Christian.
” Not everybody agreed .
Francisco Morales , 47 , traveled 30 miles from Fort Lauderdale with placards highlighting the Ten Commandments he says Trump has violated .
“ He ’ s everything a Christian shouldn ’ t be .
He ’ s about money and himself , he uses God ’ s word to his benefit , he doesn ’ t respect Christian holidays , he insults everyone .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and all women , ” Morales said .
“ These people waiting in line for five hours , listening to wonderful Christian music , once they get to that sacred auditorium they hear Trump insult other people … It ’ s a holy place but Trump does not respect that.
” Florida ’ s Democratic party , meanwhile , rolled out some religious figures of their own to counter Trump ’ s appearance .
Doug Pagitt , a pastor and executive director of Vote Common Good , an organization that mobilizes voters of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a sham .
“ He ’ s trying to use this rally and this base to give cover for his broken promises and his immoral policies , ” Pagitt said .
“ It is Trump ’ s desperate response to the realization that he ’ s losing his primary voting bloc , faith voters .
He realizes he needs every last vote if he wants a shot at re-election [ and ] losing even five per cent ends his chances .
“ Voters know that their faith does not depend on the @ @ @ @ @ @

They came to pray with their president, though in truth many came just to worship him. Donald Trump’s Friday launch of his so-called “coalition of evangelicals”, an attempt to shore up the support of the religious right ahead of November’s election, had the feel of any other campaign rally, except this time with gospel music.
An estimated 7,000 “supporters of faith” packed the King Jesus international ministry megachurch in Miami to hear the word of the president, and decided that it was good. The Maga hat-wearing faithful cheered Trump’s comments on issues calculated to resonate with his churchgoing audience, including abortion, freedoms of speech and religion, and what he claimed was a “crusade” from Democrats against religious tolerance.
“My administration will never stop fighting for Americans of faith,” Trump said at the conclusion of an often freewheeling 75-minute speech. “We will restore the faith as the true foundation of American life.”
Trump also gloated about Thursday’s military strike that took out the Iranian general Qassem Suleimani in Baghdad. “It was flawless strike that eliminated the terrorist ringleader,” he said, insisting the killing would save the lives of “hundreds and hundreds of Americans.
“His atrocities have been stopped for good. He was planning a very major attack and we got him.”
‘I really believe we have God on our side,’ Trump said Friday. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Absent from his remarks, however, was any discussion of one of his signature policies, the hardline crackdown on immigration that has seen thousands of undocumented migrants deported.
At this Hispanic megachurch, where even the pastor acknowledges many in his congregation are in the country illegally, perhaps that was no surprise. Trump did concede he had made it harder for foreigners to enter or stay in the US, but only to “make sure foreign terrorists cannot obtain admission”.
It was exactly what evangelical Christians in the audience wanted to hear. Some, like Michael David Layne, a 62-year-old US army veteran who regularly attends the King Jesus church, marries what he sees as Trump’s “strong leadership” with “solid Christian values”, which he said the president showed in Thursday’s military strike. “We can get anybody, anywhere, anytime, anywhere there is terrorism,” he said.
Layne acknowledges that Trump’s life – which includes three marriages, adultery and alleged affairs with porn stars – might appear less than pious, but is able to overlook it. “He might be a little rough around the edges for some people, but he says it like it is, and if some of the things he says or the actions he takes upset some people it doesn’t make him less of a man of God.”
Others who came to hear Trump preach were similarly unfazed by the president’s questionable religious credentials.
“I believe he has moral character and that he is a man of God,” said Steven Johnson, 65, from New Jersey. “I also believe that he believes people have to pick up the banner and do what’s right. If you don’t pick up the banner then are you really Christian?
“It sickens me the people that say they’re Christian, and they’re praying for people, but they’re stabbing them in the back. It’s a shame. We need a revival in this country and get back to common sense, moral values. We’ve gone way off the deep end.”
The need for some kind of national restoration of faith was a topic Trump returned to more than once.
“For America to thrive in the 21st century we must renew faith and family as the center of American life,” the president said during one plainly scripted part of his speech.
“Faith-based schools, charities, hospitals, adoption agencies, pastors were systematically targeted by federal bureaucrats and ordered to stop following their beliefs,” he said, without evidence.
Friday’s rally, hastily organized in the wake of a stinging Christianity Today editorial last month, recognized Trump’s need to retain the loyalty of the evangelical voting bloc that propelled him to victory in 2016. Four years ago, he won 80% backing from white evangelical voters nationwide.
“In 2016 evangelical Christians went out and helped us in numbers never seen before. We’re going to blow those numbers away in 2020,” Trump said. “I really believe we have God on our side.”
For Rose Ann Farrell, 74, from Florida, the claim rang true. “I really believe he was sent to us,” she said. “From one to ten, he’s a ten. He lives in a Christian world and we needed a strong Christian, somebody who is not afraid. He speaks for us, has the guts and courage to speak what we want to say. His actions, his intentions, are Christian.”
Not everybody agreed. Francisco Morales, 47, traveled 30 miles from Fort Lauderdale with placards highlighting the Ten Commandments he says Trump has violated.
People pray together during the ‘Evangelicals for Trump’ campaign as they await the arrival of Donald Trump. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
“He’s everything a Christian shouldn’t be. He’s about money and himself, he uses God’s word to his benefit, he doesn’t respect Christian holidays, he insults everyone. And he dishonors his wife, his daughter and all women,” Morales said.
“These people waiting in line for five hours, listening to wonderful Christian music, once they get to that sacred auditorium they hear Trump insult other people … It’s a holy place but Trump does not respect that.”
Florida’s Democratic party, meanwhile, rolled out some religious figures of their own to counter Trump’s appearance.
Doug Pagitt, a pastor and executive director of Vote Common Good, an organization that mobilizes voters of faith, decried Trump’s event as a sham.
“He’s trying to use this rally and this base to give cover for his broken promises and his immoral policies,” Pagitt said.
“It is Trump’s desperate response to the realization that he’s losing his primary voting bloc, faith voters. He realizes he needs every last vote if he wants a shot at re-election [and] losing even five per cent ends his chances.
“Voters know that their faith does not depend on the power of the presidency.”


theguardian--2020-01-04--Suleimani killing the latest in a long, grim line of US assassination efforts

The US government is no stranger to the dark arts of political assassinations .
Over the decades it has deployed elaborate techniques against its foes , from dispatching a chemist armed with lethal poison to try to take out Congo ’ s Patrice Lumumba in the 1960s to planting poison pills ( equally unsuccessfully ) in the Cuban leader Fidel Castro ’ s food .
But the killing of Gen Qassem Suleimani , the leader of Iran ’ s elite military Quds force , was in a class all its own .
Its uniqueness lay not so much in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the victim if they are eviscerated by aerial drone like Suleimani , or executed following a CIA-backed coup , as was Iraq ’ s ruler in 1963 , Abdul Karim Kassem ?
– but in the brazenness of its execution and the apparently total disregard for either legal niceties or human consequences .
“ The US simply isn ’ t in the practice of assassinating senior state officials out in the open like this , ” said Charles Lister , senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington .
“ While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a great deal of suffering , and his Quds force was designated by the US as a terrorist organization , there ’ s no escaping that he was arguably the second most powerful man in Iran behind the supreme leader.
” Donald Trump ’ s gloating tweets over the killing combined with a sparse effort to justify the action in either domestic or international law has led to the US being accused of the very crimes it normally pins on its enemies .
Iran ’ s foreign minister , Mohammad Javad Zarif , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of international terrorism ” .
Vipin Narang , a political scientist at MIT , said the killing “ wasn ’ t deterrence , it was decapitation ” .
There has been no shortage of US interventions over the past half-century that have attempted – and in some cases succeeded – in removing foreign adversaries through highly dubious legal or ethical means .
The country has admitted to making no fewer than eight assassination attempts on Castro , though the real figure was probably much higher .
William Blum , the author of Killing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Since World War II , points to a litany of American sins from invasions , bombings , overthrowing of governments , assassinations to torture and death squads .
“ It ’ s not a pretty picture ” is his blunt conclusion .
The CIA was deemed to have run so amok in the 1960s and 70s that in 1975 the Church committee investigated a numerous attempted assassinations on foreign leaders including Lumumba , Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic , Vietnam ’ s Ngo Dinh Diem and , of course , Castro .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ US involvement in foreign political assassinations .
The ban didn ’ t last long .
Since 1976 the US has continued to be engaged in , or accused of , efforts to eradicate foreign leaders .
Ronald Reagan launched bombing raids in 1986 targeting Libya ’ s Muammar Gaddafi .
As recently as two years ago North Korea alleged that the CIA tried to assassinate its leader , Kim Jong-un .
But most of the interventions in the modern era have been covert and conducted beneath the radar .
Where they have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ target non-state actors operating in militias or militant groups like Islamic State .
Barack Obama and Trump both claimed huge public relations victories when they oversaw the killings of Osama bin Laden and the Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi , respectively .
By contrast , until Trump the US has tended to fight shy of conducting overt assassination attempts on state actors connected to sovereign regimes .
Suleimani himself is a case in point .
In 2008 , the CIA worked hand in glove with the Israeli intelligence service the Mossad to target @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for assassination .
In the course of their efforts they had the chance of taking out not only Mughniyah but also Suleimani in a single drone strike .
In the end , the operation was called off because the US government blocked it on grounds that it could seriously have destabilised the region .
Despite such reticence , Mary Ellen O ’ Connell , a professor of international law at the University of Notre Dame , draws a direct line between earlier US administrations and the convention-shredding unpredictability of Trump .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2000 put the US on a slippery slope towards the current crisis .
The first deployment of a drone as an assassination tool was ordered by Bill Clinton in an effort to get Bin Laden .
The first successful “ targeted killing ” , as it is now called , came soon after , carried out by the Bush administration in Yemen .
Obama inherited Bush ’ s widespread use of drone killings and increased their frequency tenfold , while seeking to give them a veneer of legal respectability with the secret @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those documents argued that drone assassinations were justified under international law as self-defense against future terrorist attacks – a rationale that has been widely disputed as a misreading of the UN charter .
“ Since Obama there has been a steady dilution of international law , ” O ’ Connell said .
“ Suleimani ’ s death marks the next dilution – we are moving down a slope towards a completely lawless situation.
” O ’ Connell added that there was only one step left for the US now to take .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think President Trump is there already – his only argument has been that Suleimani was a bad guy and so he had to be killed .
”

The US government is no stranger to the dark arts of political assassinations. Over the decades it has deployed elaborate techniques against its foes, from dispatching a chemist armed with lethal poison to try to take out Congo’s Patrice Lumumba in the 1960s to planting poison pills (equally unsuccessfully) in the Cuban leader Fidel Castro’s food.
But the killing of Gen Qassem Suleimani, the leader of Iran’s elite military Quds force, was in a class all its own. Its uniqueness lay not so much in its method – what difference does it make to the victim if they are eviscerated by aerial drone like Suleimani, or executed following a CIA-backed coup, as was Iraq’s ruler in 1963, Abdul Karim Kassem? – but in the brazenness of its execution and the apparently total disregard for either legal niceties or human consequences.
“The US simply isn’t in the practice of assassinating senior state officials out in the open like this,” said Charles Lister, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington. “While Suleimani was a brutal figure responsible for a great deal of suffering, and his Quds force was designated by the US as a terrorist organization, there’s no escaping that he was arguably the second most powerful man in Iran behind the supreme leader.”
Donald Trump’s gloating tweets over the killing combined with a sparse effort to justify the action in either domestic or international law has led to the US being accused of the very crimes it normally pins on its enemies. Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, denounced the assassination as an “act of international terrorism”.
Vipin Narang, a political scientist at MIT, said the killing “wasn’t deterrence, it was decapitation”.
There has been no shortage of US interventions over the past half-century that have attempted – and in some cases succeeded – in removing foreign adversaries through highly dubious legal or ethical means. The country has admitted to making no fewer than eight assassination attempts on Castro, though the real figure was probably much higher.
William Blum, the author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, points to a litany of American sins from invasions, bombings, overthrowing of governments, assassinations to torture and death squads. “It’s not a pretty picture” is his blunt conclusion.
The CIA was deemed to have run so amok in the 1960s and 70s that in 1975 the Church committee investigated a numerous attempted assassinations on foreign leaders including Lumumba, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Vietnam’s Ngo Dinh Diem and, of course, Castro. In the fallout, Gerald Ford banned US involvement in foreign political assassinations.
The ban didn’t last long. Since 1976 the US has continued to be engaged in, or accused of, efforts to eradicate foreign leaders.
Ronald Reagan launched bombing raids in 1986 targeting Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. As recently as two years ago North Korea alleged that the CIA tried to assassinate its leader, Kim Jong-un.
But most of the interventions in the modern era have been covert and conducted beneath the radar. Where they have been proclaimed publicly, they have tended to target non-state actors operating in militias or militant groups like Islamic State.
Barack Obama and Trump both claimed huge public relations victories when they oversaw the killings of Osama bin Laden and the Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, respectively.
Barack Obama and the national security team receive an update on the mission to kill Osama bin Laden in May 2011. Photograph: Pete Souza/AP
By contrast, until Trump the US has tended to fight shy of conducting overt assassination attempts on state actors connected to sovereign regimes. Suleimani himself is a case in point.
In 2008, the CIA worked hand in glove with the Israeli intelligence service the Mossad to target Imad Mughniyah, a senior Hezbollah leader, for assassination. In the course of their efforts they had the chance of taking out not only Mughniyah but also Suleimani in a single drone strike. In the end, the operation was called off because the US government blocked it on grounds that it could seriously have destabilised the region.
Despite such reticence, Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor of international law at the University of Notre Dame, draws a direct line between earlier US administrations and the convention-shredding unpredictability of Trump. She said the advent of the unmanned drone in 2000 put the US on a slippery slope towards the current crisis.
The first deployment of a drone as an assassination tool was ordered by Bill Clinton in an effort to get Bin Laden. The first successful “targeted killing”, as it is now called, came soon after, carried out by the Bush administration in Yemen.
Obama inherited Bush’s widespread use of drone killings and increased their frequency tenfold, while seeking to give them a veneer of legal respectability with the secret internal “targeted killing memos”. Those documents argued that drone assassinations were justified under international law as self-defense against future terrorist attacks – a rationale that has been widely disputed as a misreading of the UN charter.
“Since Obama there has been a steady dilution of international law,” O’Connell said. “Suleimani’s death marks the next dilution – we are moving down a slope towards a completely lawless situation.”
O’Connell added that there was only one step left for the US now to take. “To completely ignore the law. Frankly, I think President Trump is there already – his only argument has been that Suleimani was a bad guy and so he had to be killed.”


theguardian--2020-01-03--Trump's order to kill Iran's top general is his biggest gamble yet

The only predictable thing about Donald Trump is his unpredictability .
Two days into the month of an impeachment trial and an election year , he gave the kaleidoscope a mighty shake with arguably the most consequential decision of his presidency .
From his luxurious Florida retreat , Mar-a-Lago , Trump authorised a drone strike at Baghdad international airport that killed Iran ’ s top general and second most powerful official , Qassem Suleimani , said to be developing plans to attack US diplomats and service members in Iraq and the region .
In an instant , he rallied flag-waving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the forthcoming Senate impeachment trial more certain than ever ( never one for subtle messaging , his current pinned tweet is an image of the stars and stripes ) .
He also delivered a truck load of red meat to his support base : expect re-election campaign ads to portray him as a decisive commander-in-chief who takes out terrorists .
But after three years of relative prosperity at home and relative peace abroad , it also looks set to be the biggest gamble of Trump ’ s life .
The candidate who relentlessly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wars now risks starting a new one against Iran or its proxies .
As past presidents have found , once bodybags start coming home , voters have a tendency to rebel .
“ Short term , this will help Trump because it plays to his image of being strong and decisive , and it distracts from impeachment , ” said Charlie Sykes , the founder and editor-at-large of the Bulwark website .
“ He is , in effect , creating a resumé of dead terrorists he can point to on the campaign trail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ re strong , nobody messes with America.
” The killing of Suleimani , the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force , follows that of the Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in Syria in October .
The Trump re-election campaign was quick to cut a video championing that strike .
The White House even attempted to turn the military dog involved in the raid into a celebrity .
Suleimani , however , is of a different order – this was the targeted assassination of a state military leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George W Bush and Barack Obama both rejected the move as too destabilising for the region .
Based on his temperament , his past behaviour ( including on Ukraine , the basis for the current impeachment proceedings against him ) and his volatile tweeting , there is plenty of reason to believe that Trump has not thought about what follows the immediate sugar rush .
Sykes warned : “ Less clear is the long term because there are so many uncertainties .
He ’ s unleashed something he ’ s not able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a president who plays Whac-A-Mole rather than chess .
I don ’ t think he ’ s thought through the long-term implications of this.
” He added : “ Wars always start popular and they often end politically toxic.
” On Friday # WagTheDog2020 was trending on Twitter , a reference to the 1997 satirical film in which a Washington spin doctor ( Robert De Niro ) hires a Hollywood producer ( Dustin Hoffman ) to fabricate a foreign war to distract voters from a presidential sex scandal .
Could even Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Don ’ t bet against it .
Back in 2011 and 2012 , Trump spoke on TV and tweeted a theory that Obama would bomb Iran to boost his polling numbers and win re-election .
“ This is the way his mind works , ” Sykes observed .
This is also an example of Trump embracing the “ madman theory ” most closely associated with his predecessor Richard Nixon ’ s foreign policy .
By making volatility your raison d ’ être , you keep your adversaries on their toes .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apply not only to foreign foes but domestic ones : try to throw Democrats off balance by goading them to criticise him , at the risk of looking too soft and seeming to excuse Suleimani ’ s crimes .
Thus the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates lined up to thread this needle .
Joe Biden , the former vice-president and current frontrunner , said “ No American will mourn Suleimani ’ s passing , ” but also warned : “ President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox .
I hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and third-order consequences of the path they have chosen.
” Inevitably , Republicans were quick to turn it into an election issue .
Steve Guest , the rapid response director of the Republican National Committee , distributed an email that said : “ If Joe Biden were president , Osama bin Laden would still be alive , Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi would still be alive , Suleimani would still be alive , China would be eating our lunch , and Iran would be on the path to a nuke.
” Similarly , Senate Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial expected later this month are likely to be denounced as unpatriotic , undermining the commander-in-chief at a moment of national crisis .
Republicans appear to have united in praise .
The Trump loyalist Lindsey Graham , a senator from South Carolina , issued a statement that began : “ Wow – the price of killing and injuring Americans has just gone up drastically.
” In this political gambit , Trump may have been emboldened by his 2018 decision to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem .
Although dozens of Palestinians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now widely played down by Donald Trump Jr and other surrogates , and even Democratic candidates have been reluctant to say they would move the embassy back .
Overall , Trump and others regard the talk of tinderboxes then as having been proven overblown .
They claim vindication and say that Trump was willing to take decisive action where his predecessors would not .
Expect to hear the same “ boy who cried wolf ” argument about the assassination of Suleimani .
This is tactics , however , not strategy .
Nothing from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House is prepared for what is to come .
Bill Galston , a senior fellow in the Brookings Institution thinktank in Washington and former policy adviser to Bill Clinton , said the administration has handed the initiative to Tehran .
“ President Trump has made himself a hostage to the decisions of Iran ’ s supreme leader .
It could be fatal to his candidacy if this escalating move triggers a series of events that leads to a full confrontation with Iran .
This action has made Iran a crucial actor in @ @ @ @ @ @

The only predictable thing about Donald Trump is his unpredictability. Two days into the month of an impeachment trial and an election year, he gave the kaleidoscope a mighty shake with arguably the most consequential decision of his presidency.
From his luxurious Florida retreat, Mar-a-Lago, Trump authorised a drone strike at Baghdad international airport that killed Iran’s top general and second most powerful official, Qassem Suleimani, said to be developing plans to attack US diplomats and service members in Iraq and the region.
In an instant, he rallied flag-waving Republican allies, making his acquittal in the forthcoming Senate impeachment trial more certain than ever (never one for subtle messaging, his current pinned tweet is an image of the stars and stripes). He also delivered a truck load of red meat to his support base: expect re-election campaign ads to portray him as a decisive commander-in-chief who takes out terrorists.
But after three years of relative prosperity at home and relative peace abroad, it also looks set to be the biggest gamble of Trump’s life. The candidate who relentlessly campaigned on ending America’s endless wars now risks starting a new one against Iran or its proxies. As past presidents have found, once bodybags start coming home, voters have a tendency to rebel.
“Short term, this will help Trump because it plays to his image of being strong and decisive, and it distracts from impeachment,” said Charlie Sykes, the founder and editor-at-large of the Bulwark website. “He is, in effect, creating a resumé of dead terrorists he can point to on the campaign trail and say we’re winning again, we’re strong, nobody messes with America.”
The killing of Suleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, follows that of the Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in Syria in October. The Trump re-election campaign was quick to cut a video championing that strike. The White House even attempted to turn the military dog involved in the raid into a celebrity.
“Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate...So the only way he figures he’s going to get reelected, and as sure as you’re sitting there, is to start a war with Iran.” pic.twitter.com/CCKsY7SKoV — Tim O'Brien (@TimOBrien) January 3, 2020
Suleimani, however, is of a different order – this was the targeted assassination of a state military leader, carried out without congressional authority. George W Bush and Barack Obama both rejected the move as too destabilising for the region. Based on his temperament, his past behaviour (including on Ukraine, the basis for the current impeachment proceedings against him) and his volatile tweeting, there is plenty of reason to believe that Trump has not thought about what follows the immediate sugar rush.
Sykes warned: “Less clear is the long term because there are so many uncertainties. He’s unleashed something he’s not able to control. This is the problem with a president who plays Whac-A-Mole rather than chess. I don’t think he’s thought through the long-term implications of this.”
He added: “Wars always start popular and they often end politically toxic.”
On Friday #WagTheDog2020 was trending on Twitter, a reference to the 1997 satirical film in which a Washington spin doctor (Robert De Niro) hires a Hollywood producer (Dustin Hoffman) to fabricate a foreign war to distract voters from a presidential sex scandal. Could even Trump, facing impeachment, have been so cynical? Don’t bet against it.
Back in 2011 and 2012, Trump spoke on TV and tweeted a theory that Obama would bomb Iran to boost his polling numbers and win re-election. “This is the way his mind works,” Sykes observed.
Trump has made himself a hostage to the decisions of Iran’s supreme leader. It could be fatal to his candidacy Bill Galston
This is also an example of Trump embracing the “madman theory” most closely associated with his predecessor Richard Nixon’s foreign policy. By making volatility your raison d’être, you keep your adversaries on their toes. In Trump’s view, this may apply not only to foreign foes but domestic ones: try to throw Democrats off balance by goading them to criticise him, at the risk of looking too soft and seeming to excuse Suleimani’s crimes.
Thus the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates lined up to thread this needle. Joe Biden, the former vice-president and current frontrunner, said “No American will mourn Suleimani’s passing,” but also warned: “President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox. I hope the administration has thought through the second- and third-order consequences of the path they have chosen.”
Inevitably, Republicans were quick to turn it into an election issue. Steve Guest, the rapid response director of the Republican National Committee, distributed an email that said: “If Joe Biden were president, Osama bin Laden would still be alive, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi would still be alive, Suleimani would still be alive, China would be eating our lunch, and Iran would be on the path to a nuke.”
Similarly, Senate Democrats seeking to convict Trump at the impeachment trial expected later this month are likely to be denounced as unpatriotic, undermining the commander-in-chief at a moment of national crisis. Republicans appear to have united in praise. The Trump loyalist Lindsey Graham, a senator from South Carolina, issued a statement that began: “Wow – the price of killing and injuring Americans has just gone up drastically.”
In this political gambit, Trump may have been emboldened by his 2018 decision to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Although dozens of Palestinians were killed during demonstrations, this is now widely played down by Donald Trump Jr and other surrogates, and even Democratic candidates have been reluctant to say they would move the embassy back. Overall, Trump and others regard the talk of tinderboxes then as having been proven overblown.
They claim vindication and say that Trump was willing to take decisive action where his predecessors would not. Expect to hear the same “boy who cried wolf” argument about the assassination of Suleimani. This is tactics, however, not strategy. Nothing from the past three years suggests that this White House is prepared for what is to come.
Bill Galston, a senior fellow in the Brookings Institution thinktank in Washington and former policy adviser to Bill Clinton, said the administration has handed the initiative to Tehran. “President Trump has made himself a hostage to the decisions of Iran’s supreme leader. It could be fatal to his candidacy if this escalating move triggers a series of events that leads to a full confrontation with Iran. This action has made Iran a crucial actor in the US presidential election.”


theguardian--2020-01-03--Aftermath of US airstrike that killed top Iranian general Qassem Suleimani – video report

The White House said Donald Trump ordered an airstrike that killed the powerful Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia @ @ @ @ @ The attack came amid Iranian tensions with the US after thousands of Iraqis stormed the @ @ @ @ @ this week .
The killing of Suleimani presents a dramatic escalation of an already bloody @ @ @ @ @ for influence across the region • US citizens in Iraq : please tell us about @ @

The White House said Donald Trump ordered an airstrike that killed the powerful Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. The attack came amid Iranian tensions with the US after thousands of Iraqis stormed the US embassy compound in Baghdad this week. The killing of Suleimani presents a dramatic escalation of an already bloody struggle between Washington and Tehran for influence across the region


theguardian--2020-01-07--Iran launches missiles on US airbase in Iraq – live updates

From The Guardian ’ s Julian Borger and Patrick Wintour : An airbase in Iraq ’ s Anbar province that hosts a US contingent has come under fire , the US military confirmed , after a day in which Donald Trump and the Iranian leadership exchanged threats of retaliatory attacks .
Initial reports said al-Asad base was hit by six rockets .
It has previously been a target of an Iranian-backed Shia militia , Kata ’ ib Hezbollah , whose attacks on US and coalition troops triggered tit-for-tat strikes that culminated in the killing on Friday of top Iranian general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports of missile attacks elsewhere in Iraq .
Earlier in the day , the secretary of Iran ’ s national security council , Ali Shamkhani , said 13 “ revenge scenarios ” were being considered in the wake of the assassination of Qassem Suleimani , the head of Iran ’ s elite Quds force , and that even the most limited options would be a “ historic nightmare ” for the US .
Ali Shamkhani told the Tasnim news agency : “ The 27 US bases that are closest to Iran ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they know that the response is likely to include medium-range & long-range missiles.
” Trump responded to Iranian threats in remarks to the press at the White House “ We ’ re totally prepared .
And likewise , we ’ re prepared to attack if we have to , ” he said .

Maanvi Singh in San Francisco (now) and Joan E Greve in Washington (earlier)

8 Jan 2020 13.51 GMT The Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, has condemned Iran’s missile strike against US forces in Iraq, while a Nato official says there were no casualties among the military alliances personnel in the country. The Iraqi mission consists of several hundred staff from allied nations and non-Nato countries. In a message to the Associated Press, the Nato official who was not authorised to speak publicly said they were “keeping the situation under close review”. Meanwhile, in a message posted on Twitter, Stoltenberg urged Iran to refrain from further violence.
I condemn the Iranian missile attacks on US & @coalition forces in Iraq. #NATO calls on Iran to refrain from further violence. Allies continue to consult & remain committed to our training mission in Iraq. pic.twitter.com/6PdXMZxSNB — Jens Stoltenberg (@jensstoltenberg) January 8, 2020
Updated at 13.57 GMT
8 Jan 2020 13.10 GMT French citizens in the Israeli city of Haifa should exercise caution in light of the tensions in the Middle East, the French Foreign Ministry has said in an update to security advice on its website. “Following the recent escalation in tensions in the region, the city of Haifa has been the subject of explicit threats,” it said in a statement, without giving any more precise details. Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office doesn’t specifically mention Haifa, but advises visitors to the travel section of its website: “There is a possibility of an increased threat against western interests and the security situation could worsen with little warning.”
Updated at 13.41 GMT
8 Jan 2020 12.38 GMT Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, said: “Isn’t the truth, Mr Speaker, that this prime minister is unable to stand up to President Trump because he has hitched his wagon to a trade deal with the United States and that prioritises everything else that he ought to be considering?” Johnson replied: “This is absolute fiction. But what I will say is that the UK will continue to work for de-escalation in the region.” A video grab from footage broadcast by the UK Parliament’s Parliamentary Recording Unit (PRU) shows Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson as he speaks during Prime Minister’s Question time (PMQs) in the House of Commons in London on January 8, 2020. Photograph: HO/PRU/AFP via Getty Images
Updated at 13.00 GMT


theguardian--2020-01-07--Why is Pelosi waiting to send Trump articles of impeachment to the Senate?

The House speaker ’ s perceived delay in referring articles of impeachment against Donald Trump to the Senate for a trial is the gambit that has set a thousand heads scratching .
After obtaining a whistleblower report against Trump in September , Democrats in the House moved with stunning swiftness to investigate , charge and impeach the president in under three months .
Then the process stopped .
That was partly owing to the holiday break , which is only now ending .
But as the House opened its first session of the new year on Tuesday afternoon , Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to when she might take the next step , of passing the two articles of impeachment , for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress , on to the Republican-controlled Senate .
The Senate would then hold a trial , with a two-thirds majority needed to convict Trump and remove him from office – a long shot .
Speculation and political parlor-gaming about Pelosi ’ s strategy have meanwhile filled the informational vacuum .
Does she believe she can extract concessions from Mitch McConnell , the Kentucky Republican and majority leader , about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testimony or documents ?
McConnell told colleagues on Tuesday that he had the votes to set the rules unilaterally .
Or is she making a background bet about how bad it might look for Republicans to refuse to negotiate on trial rules ?
How does the looming Democratic presidential primary season figure into all of this ?
Republicans led by McConnell have sought to portray the perceived holdup – “ perceived ” because there is , after all , no constitutional guidance on the question and little guiding precedent – as a sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that House Democrats refuse to stand behind their historically partisan impeachment deepens the embarrassment for the leaders who chose to take our nation down this road , ” McConnell said in a floor speech Tuesday .
At a news conference immediately following December ’ s historic impeachment vote in the House , Pelosi said the process could not be moved forward “ until we see what the process is on the Senate side ” .
In an effort to protect Trump , Republicans have called for no new witnesses or testimony to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scheduled to meet later on Tuesday , and the full Democratic House caucus was scheduled to meet Wednesday morning .
Those meetings could produce an agreement about impeachment – and an announcement – soon .
But the palpable Republican frustration at Pelosi ’ s maneuvering might be a sufficient sign that whatever game she is playing , she is winning – for now .
“ I don ’ t want to turn the Senate over to Nancy Pelosi , ” groused the Republican Lindsey Graham , who was among senators calling for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The longer Pelosi waits to explain her moves and motives , however , the greater the risk , perhaps , that they will come in for question .
“ The continued delay in transmission now starts to become a little unusual , ” said Frank O Bowman III , a law professor and author of High Crimes and Misdemeanors .
In Pelosi ’ s defense , he said , the entire impeachment has been unique , because the House has had to conduct its own fact-finding , in contrast with prior impeachments , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cooperate .
Unexpected plot twists , such as the announcement by the former national security adviser John Bolton on Monday that he would testify before the Senate if subpoenaed , have further complicated matters .
“ One possible response is the House holds on to the articles and then hits Bolton with a subpoena to come to the House , ” said Bowman , calling Bolton ’ s announcement a “ curveball ” .
Corey Brettschneider , a law professor and author of The Oath and the Office : A Guide to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the impeachment trial , senators from both parties must take an oath vowing to sit in impartial judgment on Trump ’ s actions – when McConnell and others have explicitly vowed not to act as “ impartial jurors ” .
“ To try to get a predetermined outcome is really an outrage , ” said Brettschneider of the Republican leadership .
“ So she [ Pelosi ] is absolutely right to try to stop that process from happening until there ’ s a guarantee that there ’ s some semblance of fairness.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter is uncertain and might be diminishing , however .
Only a week into the new year , with Trump threatening war with Iran and the Iowa caucuses less than a month away , the window for impeachment to command public attention could be closing .
For all the fertile grounds for speculation the hold-up has provided , Bowman said , there was a background point that overrode the short-term political handicapping .
“ Absent some radical change either within the impeachment universe or outside of it , I think everybody understands that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theater , because the result is a foregone conclusion , ” said Bowman .
“ You ’ re not going to get 20 Republicans to vote to convict this guy .
Everybody understands that .
”

What is Nancy Pelosi thinking?
The House speaker’s perceived delay in referring articles of impeachment against Donald Trump to the Senate for a trial is the gambit that has set a thousand heads scratching.
After obtaining a whistleblower report against Trump in September, Democrats in the House moved with stunning swiftness to investigate, charge and impeach the president in under three months.
Then the process stopped. That was partly owing to the holiday break, which is only now ending.
But as the House opened its first session of the new year on Tuesday afternoon, Pelosi had still not tipped her hand as to when she might take the next step, of passing the two articles of impeachment, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, on to the Republican-controlled Senate.
The Senate would then hold a trial, with a two-thirds majority needed to convict Trump and remove him from office – a long shot.
Speculation and political parlor-gaming about Pelosi’s strategy have meanwhile filled the informational vacuum.
Does she believe she can extract concessions from Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and majority leader, about whether the Senate trial will include witness testimony or documents? McConnell told colleagues on Tuesday that he had the votes to set the rules unilaterally.
Or is she making a background bet about how bad it might look for Republicans to refuse to negotiate on trial rules? How does the looming Democratic presidential primary season figure into all of this?
Republicans led by McConnell have sought to portray the perceived holdup – “perceived” because there is, after all, no constitutional guidance on the question and little guiding precedent – as a sign of Democratic weakness.
“Every day that House Democrats refuse to stand behind their historically partisan impeachment deepens the embarrassment for the leaders who chose to take our nation down this road,” McConnell said in a floor speech Tuesday.
At a news conference immediately following December’s historic impeachment vote in the House, Pelosi said the process could not be moved forward “until we see what the process is on the Senate side”. In an effort to protect Trump, Republicans have called for no new witnesses or testimony to be entertained.
Pelosi and her lieutenants were scheduled to meet later on Tuesday, and the full Democratic House caucus was scheduled to meet Wednesday morning. Those meetings could produce an agreement about impeachment – and an announcement – soon.
But the palpable Republican frustration at Pelosi’s maneuvering might be a sufficient sign that whatever game she is playing, she is winning – for now.
“I don’t want to turn the Senate over to Nancy Pelosi,” groused the Republican Lindsey Graham, who was among senators calling for a rules change to speed the process.
The longer Pelosi waits to explain her moves and motives, however, the greater the risk, perhaps, that they will come in for question.
“The continued delay in transmission now starts to become a little unusual,” said Frank O Bowman III, a law professor and author of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. In Pelosi’s defense, he said, the entire impeachment has been unique, because the House has had to conduct its own fact-finding, in contrast with prior impeachments, while the president has wholly refused to cooperate.
Unexpected plot twists, such as the announcement by the former national security adviser John Bolton on Monday that he would testify before the Senate if subpoenaed, have further complicated matters.
“One possible response is the House holds on to the articles and then hits Bolton with a subpoena to come to the House,” said Bowman, calling Bolton’s announcement a “curveball”.
Corey Brettschneider, a law professor and author of The Oath and the Office: A Guide to the Constitution for Future Presidents, noted that before the impeachment trial, senators from both parties must take an oath vowing to sit in impartial judgment on Trump’s actions – when McConnell and others have explicitly vowed not to act as “impartial jurors”.
“To try to get a predetermined outcome is really an outrage,” said Brettschneider of the Republican leadership. “So she [Pelosi] is absolutely right to try to stop that process from happening until there’s a guarantee that there’s some semblance of fairness.”
The leverage Pelosi wields in the matter is uncertain and might be diminishing, however. Only a week into the new year, with Trump threatening war with Iran and the Iowa caucuses less than a month away, the window for impeachment to command public attention could be closing.
For all the fertile grounds for speculation the hold-up has provided, Bowman said, there was a background point that overrode the short-term political handicapping.
“Absent some radical change either within the impeachment universe or outside of it, I think everybody understands that all of this is sort of kabuki theater, because the result is a foregone conclusion,” said Bowman.
“You’re not going to get 20 Republicans to vote to convict this guy. Everybody understands that.”


theguardian--2020-01-07--Andrzej Krauze on the EU’s relevance in the world - cartoon

Australia is burning , climate disaster goes unaddressed and the Middle East is in turmoil , but Europe ’ s @ @ @ @ @ weak

Australia is burning, climate disaster goes unaddressed and the Middle East is in turmoil, but Europe’s influence on global issues is weak


theguardian--2020-01-08--Iran missile attack: Iraq says it received advance warning from Tehran – live updates

This is from the Guardian ’ s diplomatic editor , Patrick Wintour : Iran says it will not hand over @ @ @ @ @ Ukrainian plane to Boeing .
The black box containing vital records of how the plane @ @ @ @ @ a field among the debris of the plane outside Tehran .
It is not clear @ @ @ @ @ the legality of handing over the black box to Boeing , or whether they are @ @ @ @ @ themselves .
The Ukrainian government has deleted a tweet saying the plane ’ s crash @ @ @ @ @ accident .
The news has fuelled speculation that there is something suspicious about the downing @ @ @ @ @ one theory doing the rounds on social media that Iran could have mistaken the plane @ @ @ @ @ aircraft .

Frances Perraudin (now), Kate Lyons,Maanvi Singh and Joan E Greve (earlier)


theguardian--2020-01-08--Why Iran crisis is unlikely to hit US consumers hard at the gas pumps

For many older Americans the thought of war in the Middle East will trigger memories of soaring gas prices and long lines at the pumps .
But as US relations with Iran sink to a new low there is , as yet , no sign of panic .
US crude oil prices shot higher following the killing of Iran ’ s top military commander , Qassem Suleimani , by the US last week , but the gains are modest relative to the risk of further escalation of tensions between the US and Iran .
West Texas Intermediate crude-oil prices rose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following news US air forces assassinated Suleimani , commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ’ Quds Force .
That 6 % rise is tiny compared with the swings seen in years past , largely because of the fracking revolution .
Over the last decade fracking has allowed the US to squeeze oil and gas from shale and transformed the country into the largest producer of both .
“ If we had the same skirmishing between the US and Iran happening 20 years ago or even 10 years ago , I think the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a lot bigger , because the shale revolution hadn ’ t happened yet , ” said Stewart Glickman , energy analyst at CFRA Research .
The shale-oil boom made the US largely a self-sufficient energy producer .
In October , US producers pumped nearly 12.7m barrels a day of crude oil , a record , according to the latest data from the Energy Information Administration , the statistical arm of the US energy department .
In September , the US exported more crude oil and petroleum products than it imported , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EIA began monthly record-keeping in 1973 .
That ’ s given the US more geopolitical leverage on oil , said Brian Kessens , managing director and portfolio manager at Tortoise , an energy investment firm .
Twenty years ago , the US imported 2.4m barrels of crude oil daily from the Gulf , whereas today it imports only about 700,000 barrels daily , mostly used by east coast refiners , Glickman said , citing EIA October data .
That has sheltered the US economy and consumer from the oil-price shocks common in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t mean immunity .
Oil is the most important global commodity , so US and global prices influence each other , energy-market watchers say .
And the US still needs a certain type of crude oil not available here to make some of its domestic refineries run , so the US can ’ t completely go it alone .
The US and the world are also less reliant on Iranian oil than in the past .
Not only did the Trump administration reinstate sanctions on Iran when the US pulled out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iranian crude off the market , but other non-Opec producers are ready to fill the supply gap .
Although Iran is the seventh-largest global producer and the fourth-largest Opec producer , Canada , Brazil and Russia are all big producers of oil , in addition to the US , which now is the world ’ s top producer .
Price spikes related to geopolitics can be short-lived .
In September , oil prices jumped after Iran bombed a key Saudi Arabian oil refinery .
However , that was quickly repaired and prices reverted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responds to the US attack will determine oil-price direction , said Rob Haworth , senior investment strategist at US Bank Wealth Management .
There are reports of Iranian cybersecurity attacks , but so far no reports of impacts on oil production .
That ’ s one reason why oil prices retreated from Monday ’ s high , now trading at $ 62.76 .
“ The key is , how is output actually changed in the long run , ” Haworth said .
Unless there ’ s a sustained price rise , any impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amanda Agati , chief investment strategist at PNC Financial Services Group .
Even if US crude oil prices rise to $ 70 a barrel , consumers are in good shape to weather the uptick as their finances are strong , the US economy is growing and unemployment is low .
“ It ’ s not ideal , but it ’ s manageable , ” she said .
So far gasoline prices haven ’ t changed much following the air strikes , with AAA saying the current nationwide average price for a gallon of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same as a week and a month ago .
It takes some movement in crude-oil prices to affect gasoline values .
A $ 10-a-barrel price rise in oil increases gasoline prices by 24 cents a gallon , if the cost is fully passed through , Glickman said , citing IHS Markit data .
Consumer spending on gasoline may start to slow if pump prices sustain at $ 3 a gallon or higher , Kessens said , which roughly translates to $ 80 crude .
There are ways the US can temporarily manage gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Petroleum Reserve .
Sustained prices above $ 80 could also encourage more shale-oil production or from Opec or non-Opec members like Russia , eventually weighing on prices .
Higher prices are good for US shale producers , and energy was the worst-performing equity sector in 2019 , Agati said .
Shale producers are making some money , with internal rates of return around $ 40 a barrel , Glickman said .
However , they are still dealing with the wreckage caused by 2015 ’ s oil glut .
Glickman and other sources said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not growth .
“ There ’ s a huge incentive for companies not to do anything .
But at some point , if prices go up enough , they may get tempted [ to drill ] , ” he said .
The US economy is still dependent on oil and the longer the situation with Iran persists and the worse it gets , the more likely it is to hurt the US .
Could the US completely wean itself off foreign oil ?
Maybe over the long term , but in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US refining system was built to process lower-quality crude oil , now mostly imported from Canada and Mexico .
“ It would take some time for the US to reconfigure the system to fully utilize the higher-quality crude from shale oil .
It ’ s possible , but it wouldn ’ t happen day one , ” he said .

For many older Americans the thought of war in the Middle East will trigger memories of soaring gas prices and long lines at the pumps. But as US relations with Iran sink to a new low there is, as yet, no sign of panic.
US crude oil prices shot higher following the killing of Iran’s top military commander, Qassem Suleimani, by the US last week, but the gains are modest relative to the risk of further escalation of tensions between the US and Iran.
West Texas Intermediate crude-oil prices rose 6% to $64.72 a barrel following news US air forces assassinated Suleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force.
That 6% rise is tiny compared with the swings seen in years past, largely because of the fracking revolution. Over the last decade fracking has allowed the US to squeeze oil and gas from shale and transformed the country into the largest producer of both.
“If we had the same skirmishing between the US and Iran happening 20 years ago or even 10 years ago, I think the impact on the oil markets would have been a lot bigger, because the shale revolution hadn’t happened yet,” said Stewart Glickman, energy analyst at CFRA Research.
The shale-oil boom made the US largely a self-sufficient energy producer. In October, US producers pumped nearly 12.7m barrels a day of crude oil, a record, according to the latest data from the Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the US energy department. In September, the US exported more crude oil and petroleum products than it imported, the first month this has happened since the EIA began monthly record-keeping in 1973.
That’s given the US more geopolitical leverage on oil, said Brian Kessens, managing director and portfolio manager at Tortoise, an energy investment firm. Twenty years ago, the US imported 2.4m barrels of crude oil daily from the Gulf, whereas today it imports only about 700,000 barrels daily, mostly used by east coast refiners, Glickman said, citing EIA October data.
That has sheltered the US economy and consumer from the oil-price shocks common in the 1970s and 1980s. But being sheltered doesn’t mean immunity. Oil is the most important global commodity, so US and global prices influence each other, energy-market watchers say. And the US still needs a certain type of crude oil not available here to make some of its domestic refineries run, so the US can’t completely go it alone.
The US and the world are also less reliant on Iranian oil than in the past. Not only did the Trump administration reinstate sanctions on Iran when the US pulled out of the international nuclear deal, keeping Iranian crude off the market, but other non-Opec producers are ready to fill the supply gap. Although Iran is the seventh-largest global producer and the fourth-largest Opec producer, Canada, Brazil and Russia are all big producers of oil, in addition to the US, which now is the world’s top producer.
Price spikes related to geopolitics can be short-lived. In September, oil prices jumped after Iran bombed a key Saudi Arabian oil refinery. However, that was quickly repaired and prices reverted back to previous levels. How Iran responds to the US attack will determine oil-price direction, said Rob Haworth, senior investment strategist at US Bank Wealth Management. There are reports of Iranian cybersecurity attacks, but so far no reports of impacts on oil production. That’s one reason why oil prices retreated from Monday’s high, now trading at $62.76.
“The key is, how is output actually changed in the long run,” Haworth said.
Unless there’s a sustained price rise, any impact on consumers should be fleeting, said Amanda Agati, chief investment strategist at PNC Financial Services Group. Even if US crude oil prices rise to $70 a barrel, consumers are in good shape to weather the uptick as their finances are strong, the US economy is growing and unemployment is low.
“It’s not ideal, but it’s manageable,” she said.
So far gasoline prices haven’t changed much following the air strikes, with AAA saying the current nationwide average price for a gallon of regular gas is $2.85, the same as a week and a month ago. It takes some movement in crude-oil prices to affect gasoline values. A $10-a-barrel price rise in oil increases gasoline prices by 24 cents a gallon, if the cost is fully passed through, Glickman said, citing IHS Markit data.
Consumer spending on gasoline may start to slow if pump prices sustain at $3 a gallon or higher, Kessens said, which roughly translates to $80 crude. There are ways the US can temporarily manage gas prices, such as tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Sustained prices above $80 could also encourage more shale-oil production or from Opec or non-Opec members like Russia, eventually weighing on prices.
Higher prices are good for US shale producers, and energy was the worst-performing equity sector in 2019, Agati said. Shale producers are making some money, with internal rates of return around $40 a barrel, Glickman said. However, they are still dealing with the wreckage caused by 2015’s oil glut. Glickman and other sources said investors want companies to focus on cashflow, not growth.
“There’s a huge incentive for companies not to do anything. But at some point, if prices go up enough, they may get tempted [to drill],” he said.
The US economy is still dependent on oil and the longer the situation with Iran persists and the worse it gets, the more likely it is to hurt the US. Could the US completely wean itself off foreign oil? Maybe over the long term, but in the short term no. Kessens said the US refining system was built to process lower-quality crude oil, now mostly imported from Canada and Mexico. “It would take some time for the US to reconfigure the system to fully utilize the higher-quality crude from shale oil. It’s possible, but it wouldn’t happen day one,” he said.


theguardian--2020-01-08--'Wrong then, wrong now': US clash with Iran echoes march to Iraq war

A Republican president facing a tough re-election campaign and widely viewed as hopelessly out of his depth .
Bureaucrats itching to turn US military firepower on a Middle Eastern regime they claim without evidence is plotting an imminent attack .
Compliant sections of the media that put flag-waving jingoism ahead of skeptical scrutiny .
So it was in late 2002 , when President George W Bush ’ s administration built unstoppable momentum towards invading Iraq , promising to destroy weapons of mass destruction ( WMD ) that never existed .
Nearly two decades later the potential target is not Iraq @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same concerns over false pretexts and official lies .
“ The same people cheering on Trump ’ s reckless , illogical escalation to war with Iran were the ones telling us that democracy would boom across the Middle East as soon as our cake walk invasion of Iraq was done , ” tweeted Chris Murphy , a Democrat on the Senate foreign relations committee .
“ They were wrong then .
They are wrong now.
” According to the journalist Bob Woodward ’ s book Plan of Attack , Bush turned his attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington , telling the defense secretary , Donald Rumsfeld , “ Let ’ s get started on this.
” Despite huge public protests , the war started in March .
Saddam Hussein was toppled and captured but the WMD intelligence proved to be wrong .
Years of violent insurgency and the rise of Islamic State left nearly 5,000 US service members and more than 100,000 civilians dead .
It is now regarded by many as the greatest foreign policy blunder since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Washington are now worried the same dynamic is repeating itself .
Leon Panetta , a defense secretary under Bush ’ s successor Barack Obama , said : “ I think the one lesson we ’ ve learned from the wars of the 21st century is that they ’ re easy to get into but difficult to get out of .
The wars we ’ ve seen have largely resulted from failed leadership and miscalculations , mixed messages and bad understanding of intelligence and , I think , the false hope that somehow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of those elements are now playing out in the relationship between the United States and Iran.
” Trump stunned the world last week with his abrupt decision to order a drone strike that killed Iran ’ s top general , Qassem Suleimani , at Baghdad airport , plunging the US and Iran closer to war than at any point in the past four decades .
The president claimed : “ Suleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel , but we caught him in the act and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imminent ” attack remains shaky and has been cast into doubt by US media reports .
The official narrative was further undermined when Adel Abdul Mahdi , Iraq ’ s caretaker prime minister , said Suleimani was in the country to negotiate a de-escalation in tensions with Saudi Arabia .
One of Powell ’ s successors as secretary of state , Mike Pompeo , has repeatedly failed to give specific details .
One of Cheney ’ s successors as vice-president , Mike Pence , tweeted that Suleimani “ assisted in the clandestine travel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States ” .
The claim has been debunked by fact checkers .
Panetta added : “ They often say that truth is the first casualty of war but you could also say that truth may be the first casualty when you ’ re leading up to war .
I think there ’ s a great deal of concern that the American people , and the world for that matter , is not getting the straight story about exactly what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bush administration ’ s march to war .
Jackson Lears , a history professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey , said : “ There certainly are echoes and continuities from the whole global war on terror ethos .
The arguments employed 17 or 18 years ago are being dragged out and invoked again.
” Bush was egged on by Cheney , Rumsfeld , the CIA director George Tenet and neoconservatives intent on “ democracy promotion ” in the Middle East .
Similarly , Trump appears to be under the influence of Pompeo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Supporters in Congress include Cheney ’ s daughter Liz .
Before the Iraq invasion , parts of the US media were condemned for getting swept up in cheerleading the troops into battle .
Judith Miller , an investigative reporter at the New York Times , wrote a series of articles since criticised for too unquestioningly promoting the administration ’ s line about chemical and biological weapons and possible nuclear material in Iraq .
This week , Miller , now an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute thinktank , turned up to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the conservative network ’ s hosts have been fiercely defending Trump ’ s decision .
Some media outlets – and some Democratic presidential candidates – have been reluctant to describe the killing of Suleimani as an “ assassination ” .
Glenn Greenwald , a journalist at the Intercept , tweeted in response : “ Nobody loves US militarism and violence more than US journalists .
It ’ s what gets their blood pumping .
They demand people be killed .
They ’ re bloodthirsty.
” Even so , there are crucial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was launched against the backdrop of the 9/11 trauma , while the Iran confrontation is unfolding against the backdrop of Trump ’ s impeachment .
This president ’ s reputation for mendacity has ensured an extra level of skepticism in many media outlets .
Panetta said : “ There ’ s a lot more cynicism about what ’ s happening today and a lot more questions being raised , so there isn ’ t as much flag-waving going on as there was at that time .
I think the president ’ s going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to somehow unify the country behind this kind of war than what we ’ ve seen in the past .
”

A Republican president facing a tough re-election campaign and widely viewed as hopelessly out of his depth. Bureaucrats itching to turn US military firepower on a Middle Eastern regime they claim without evidence is plotting an imminent attack. Compliant sections of the media that put flag-waving jingoism ahead of skeptical scrutiny.
So it was in late 2002, when President George W Bush’s administration built unstoppable momentum towards invading Iraq, promising to destroy weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that never existed. Nearly two decades later the potential target is not Iraq but Iran, with many of the same concerns over false pretexts and official lies.
“The same people cheering on Trump’s reckless, illogical escalation to war with Iran were the ones telling us that democracy would boom across the Middle East as soon as our cake walk invasion of Iraq was done,” tweeted Chris Murphy, a Democrat on the Senate foreign relations committee. “They were wrong then. They are wrong now.”
According to the journalist Bob Woodward’s book Plan of Attack, Bush turned his attention to regime change in Iraq just two months after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, telling the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, “Let’s get started on this.”
Despite huge public protests, the war started in March. Saddam Hussein was toppled and captured but the WMD intelligence proved to be wrong. Years of violent insurgency and the rise of Islamic State left nearly 5,000 US service members and more than 100,000 civilians dead. It is now regarded by many as the greatest foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam war.
Many senior figures in Washington are now worried the same dynamic is repeating itself.
Leon Panetta, a defense secretary under Bush’s successor Barack Obama, said: “I think the one lesson we’ve learned from the wars of the 21st century is that they’re easy to get into but difficult to get out of. The wars we’ve seen have largely resulted from failed leadership and miscalculations, mixed messages and bad understanding of intelligence and, I think, the false hope that somehow wars could be won quickly. A lot of those elements are now playing out in the relationship between the United States and Iran.”
Trump stunned the world last week with his abrupt decision to order a drone strike that killed Iran’s top general, Qassem Suleimani, at Baghdad airport, plunging the US and Iran closer to war than at any point in the past four decades. The president claimed: “Suleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel, but we caught him in the act and terminated him.”
Evidence for this “imminent” attack remains shaky and has been cast into doubt by US media reports. The official narrative was further undermined when Adel Abdul Mahdi, Iraq’s caretaker prime minister, said Suleimani was in the country to negotiate a de-escalation in tensions with Saudi Arabia.
One of Powell’s successors as secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, has repeatedly failed to give specific details. One of Cheney’s successors as vice-president, Mike Pence, tweeted that Suleimani “assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States”. The claim has been debunked by fact checkers.
Panetta added: “They often say that truth is the first casualty of war but you could also say that truth may be the first casualty when you’re leading up to war. I think there’s a great deal of concern that the American people, and the world for that matter, is not getting the straight story about exactly what’s happening.”
Historians hear echoes of the Bush administration’s march to war. Jackson Lears, a history professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said: “There certainly are echoes and continuities from the whole global war on terror ethos. The arguments employed 17 or 18 years ago are being dragged out and invoked again.”
Bush was egged on by Cheney, Rumsfeld, the CIA director George Tenet and neoconservatives intent on “democracy promotion” in the Middle East. Similarly, Trump appears to be under the influence of Pompeo and the defense secretary, Mark Esper. Supporters in Congress include Cheney’s daughter Liz.
George W Bush declares the end of major combat in Iraq in 2003, off the coast of California. Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP
Before the Iraq invasion, parts of the US media were condemned for getting swept up in cheerleading the troops into battle. Judith Miller, an investigative reporter at the New York Times, wrote a series of articles since criticised for too unquestioningly promoting the administration’s line about chemical and biological weapons and possible nuclear material in Iraq.
This week, Miller, now an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute thinktank, turned up to be interviewed on Fox News. Predictably, some of the conservative network’s hosts have been fiercely defending Trump’s decision.
Some media outlets – and some Democratic presidential candidates – have been reluctant to describe the killing of Suleimani as an “assassination”. Glenn Greenwald, a journalist at the Intercept, tweeted in response: “Nobody loves US militarism and violence more than US journalists. It’s what gets their blood pumping. They demand people be killed. They’re bloodthirsty.”
Even so, there are crucial differences this time. The Iraq war was launched against the backdrop of the 9/11 trauma, while the Iran confrontation is unfolding against the backdrop of Trump’s impeachment. This president’s reputation for mendacity has ensured an extra level of skepticism in many media outlets.
Panetta said: “There’s a lot more cynicism about what’s happening today and a lot more questions being raised, so there isn’t as much flag-waving going on as there was at that time. I think the president’s going to have a much more difficult time trying to somehow unify the country behind this kind of war than what we’ve seen in the past.”


theguardian--2020-01-08--Duncan Hunter: California Republican officially resigns after pleading guilty to corruption

The Republican US representative Duncan D Hunter officially resigned on Tuesday after corruption charges brought an end to his family ’ s 30-year political dynasty .
Hunter and his father , Duncan L Hunter , represented their San Diego county district for nearly 30 years .
The younger Hunter , a combat marine veteran , was known as a conservative immigration hardliner and a staunch supporter of Donald Trump .
In 2018 he became the one of the few congressmen to be re-elected while indicted .
Hunter , 43 , was indicted in August 2018 , accused of using $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ travel , school tuition , jewelry , groceries and gas .
Prosecutors said he also spent the funds on extramarital affairs and flights for his family ’ s pet rabbit .
He tried to conceal the illegal spending by listing it in federal records as donations for military veterans and other campaign-related expenses , according to the indictment .
After claiming to be the victim of a political witch hunt for more than a year , he pleaded guilty on 3 December 2019 to a single charge of conspiring with his wife to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign funds on personal expenses .
Among the improper spending were a birthday gathering for his young daughter at a posh California hotel and social outing with friends at a French bistro in Washington .
He is scheduled to be sentenced in March .
The judge could impose the maximum sentence of five years , but prosecutors have said they will ask for no more than a year of jail time .
His wife , Margaret Hunter , also pleaded guilty .
She is scheduled to be sentenced in April .
Hunter ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP ’ s few remaining House seats in heavily Democratic California .
Holding the 50th congressional district , which has an 11-point Republican registration edge , will be critical if the party hopes to reclaim control of the House after losing it to Democrats in 2018 .
The district includes ethnically diverse suburbs at the edge of San Diego that fade into farming and mountainous areas to east , including a small slice of Riverside county .
Hunter ’ s seat is being sought by numerous GOP contenders .
They include the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealthiest lawmakers to serve when he represented parts of San Diego county and neighboring Orange county under the Obama administration .
Hunter ’ s father recently endorsed him .
Also running are Carl DeMaio , a former San Diego city councilman who now is a local political commentator and radio host ; and the state senator Brian Jones .
The Democrat Ammar Campa-Najjar , a 30-year-old former Obama administration official who nearly defeated Hunter in 2018 , is widely expected to emerge from the March primary for a November showdown .
Under California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 3 March primary advance to the general election , regardless of party affiliation .

The Republican US representative Duncan D Hunter officially resigned on Tuesday after corruption charges brought an end to his family’s 30-year political dynasty.
Hunter and his father, Duncan L Hunter, represented their San Diego county district for nearly 30 years. The younger Hunter, a combat marine veteran, was known as a conservative immigration hardliner and a staunch supporter of Donald Trump.
In 2018 he became the one of the few congressmen to be re-elected while indicted.
Hunter, 43, was indicted in August 2018, accused of using $200,000 in campaign money to fund family travel, school tuition, jewelry, groceries and gas. Prosecutors said he also spent the funds on extramarital affairs and flights for his family’s pet rabbit. He tried to conceal the illegal spending by listing it in federal records as donations for military veterans and other campaign-related expenses, according to the indictment.
After claiming to be the victim of a political witch hunt for more than a year, he pleaded guilty on 3 December 2019 to a single charge of conspiring with his wife to illegally spending at least $150,000 in campaign funds on personal expenses. Among the improper spending were a birthday gathering for his young daughter at a posh California hotel and social outing with friends at a French bistro in Washington.
He is scheduled to be sentenced in March. The judge could impose the maximum sentence of five years, but prosecutors have said they will ask for no more than a year of jail time. His wife, Margaret Hunter, also pleaded guilty. She is scheduled to be sentenced in April.
Hunter’s resignation leaves open one of the GOP’s few remaining House seats in heavily Democratic California. Holding the 50th congressional district, which has an 11-point Republican registration edge, will be critical if the party hopes to reclaim control of the House after losing it to Democrats in 2018.
The district includes ethnically diverse suburbs at the edge of San Diego that fade into farming and mountainous areas to east, including a small slice of Riverside county.
Hunter’s seat is being sought by numerous GOP contenders. They include the former congressman Darrell Issa, one of the wealthiest lawmakers to serve when he represented parts of San Diego county and neighboring Orange county under the Obama administration. Hunter’s father recently endorsed him.
Also running are Carl DeMaio, a former San Diego city councilman who now is a local political commentator and radio host; and the state senator Brian Jones.
The Democrat Ammar Campa-Najjar, a 30-year-old former Obama administration official who nearly defeated Hunter in 2018, is widely expected to emerge from the March primary for a November showdown.
Under California election rules, the top two vote-getters in the 3 March primary advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation.