vox--2020-01-07--Vox Sentences: Jury selection begins for one of Me Too’s biggest cases

The news , but shorter .
Your daily wrap-up for the day in news .
Subscribe to get Vox Sentences delivered straight to your inbox .
Vox Sentences is your daily digest for what ’ s happening in the world .
Sign up for the Vox Sentences newsletter , delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Friday , or view the Vox Sentences archive for past editions .
• Jury selection in the rape trial of Harvey Weinstein began Tuesday in Manhattan , the day after the Los Angeles district attorney announced four new felony charges against the disgraced media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] • Judge James Burke denied a request by Weinstein ’ s lawyers that jury selection in the New York trial be delayed in light of the publicity stemming from new charges .
[ NBC / Adam Kuperstein and Daniel Arkin ] • Weinstein also drew Burke ’ s ire for using his cellphone in the courtroom in defiance of a court order .
The judge threatened to jail Weinstein for the duration of court proceedings over the violation .
[ Vulture / Victoria Bekiempis ] • It ’ s virtually impossible to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard about the allegations against Weinstein already , but the prosecution and defense don ’ t have to do that — they just need jurors who will make up their own mind in court .
[ Washington Post / Deanna Paul ] • Weinstein , who has denied all charges of sexual assault , could face a sentence of up to life in prison if he is found guilty in New York .
[ Vox / Anna North ] • Of eight allegations examined by the Los Angeles district attorney ’ s office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Three more remain open pending review .
[ LA Times / Richard Winton and James Queally ] • Last month , Weinstein and more than 30 of his accusers reached a tentative settlement for around $ 25 million .
Under the agreement ’ s terms , Weinstein would not have to pay the settlement himself ; instead , insurance companies representing the bankrupt Weinstein Company would be responsible for the payout .
[ NYT / Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor ] • A draft letter announcing the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials by mistake — it also included different versions in its English and Arabic translations .
[ CNN / Meg Wagner and Jack Guy ] • Caretaker Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi claims to have received a signed copy of the letter , which he is said to be treating as an official declaration of US intent .
[ Twitter / Liz Sly , Washington Post ] • The letter ’ s circulation followed a Sunday vote by the Iraqi Parliament to expel US forces from Iraq amid popular anger over the death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US airstrike .
[ NYT / Alissa J. Rubin , Ben Hubbard , Farnaz Fassihi and Steven Erlanger ] • The parliamentary resolution is nonbinding but prompted President Donald Trump to threaten Iraq with severe sanctions should US troops be ordered out of the country .
[ WSJ / Isabel Coles and Catherine Lucey ] • Soleimani ’ s killing has already impaired US operations in the region , including in the fight against ISIS .
A withdrawal from Iraq could further empower the terrorist group .
[ CNBC / Weizhen Tan ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deepfakes that will ban some AI-manipulated videos from the site .
[ NPR / Bill Chappell ] • Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took a pass on running for Senate in Kansas , setting up what could be a competitive race in 2020 .
[ NYT / Maggie Haberman , Jonathan Martin , and Alexander Burns ] • US coal consumption plummeted in 2019 , but overall greenhouse-gas emissions levels still aren ’ t on track to meet Paris Agreement targets .
[ The Atlantic / Robinson Meyer ] • As Iran tensions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into their foreign policy differences .
[ NYT / Sydney Ember and Katie Glueck ] • A Minnesota-based reporter makes the case for enjoying winter — while it lasts .
[ Washington Post / Christopher Ingraham ] “ You get dragged into the gutter of nastiness and pettiness and shame and all of these things , and it sometimes seems healthier and wiser to just move on with your life and not allow yourself to be re-victimized.
” [ Actress Daryl Hannah in a 2017 story on the trauma of speaking out against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why the rivalry and conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran is crucial to understanding the Middle East .
[ Vox on YouTube / Sam Ellis ] Bernie Sanders can unify Democrats and beat Trump in 2020 What is private equity , and why is it killing everything you love ?
The only remaining check on Trump is the 2020 election Finally , really good advice on how to stop killing your houseplants A staggering 1 billion animals are now estimated dead in Australia ’ s fires

Vox Sentences is your daily digest for what’s happening in the world. Sign up for the Vox Sentences newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Friday, or view the Vox Sentences archive for past editions.
Weinstein’s day in court
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter Sentences Get the news, but shorter, in one daily newsletter. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
Signed? Sealed? Delivered?
Miscellaneous
Verbatim
“You get dragged into the gutter of nastiness and pettiness and shame and all of these things, and it sometimes seems healthier and wiser to just move on with your life and not allow yourself to be re-victimized.” [Actress Daryl Hannah in a 2017 story on the trauma of speaking out against Harvey Weinstein / The New Yorker]
Watch this: The Middle East’s cold war, explained
Why the rivalry and conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran is crucial to understanding the Middle East. [Vox on YouTube / Sam Ellis]
Read more
Bernie Sanders can unify Democrats and beat Trump in 2020
What is private equity, and why is it killing everything you love?
The only remaining check on Trump is the 2020 election
Finally, really good advice on how to stop killing your houseplants
A staggering 1 billion animals are now estimated dead in Australia’s fires


vox--2020-01-08--“Probably the worst briefing I’ve seen”: Inside the disastrous congressional Iran meeting

Democratic lawmakers with questions about the rationale behind the Trump administration ’ s decision to kill Iran ’ s Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani didn ’ t get the answers they wanted at the time of his death .
The administration promised all of their concerns would be addressed during Senate and House briefings on secret Iranian intelligence .
Those briefings concluded Wednesday afternoon — and most Democrats ( and some Republicans ) are pissed .
Under questioning from House Democrats about US intelligence relating to whether Soleimani posed an imminent threat to Americans , as the Trump administration has repeatedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Director Gina Haspel didn ’ t answer directly .
“ Read the report , ” she said , referencing a document with intelligence relating to the Soleimani conversation .
After audible sighs from lawmakers and requests for her to brief the information during Wednesday ’ s session , she responded matter-of-factly , “ Well , it ’ s a lengthy report.
” That moment encapsulates why many lawmakers from both parties are frustrated with how top Trump Cabinet officials — including Haspel , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , Defense Secretary Mark Esper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Brien — have handled communication about Soleimani ’ s death .
They argue the administration failed to give them an adequate briefing as US-Iran tensions roil , and that it continues to do so .
Wednesday ’ s briefings showed little sign that lawmakers ’ complaints will be addressed .
In one case , according to a House Democratic aide , briefers were even “ shushing ” lawmakers who asked tough questions .
The briefings to the House and Senate were so poor that even Republicans have criticized the Trump officials ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worst briefing I ’ ve seen , at least on a military issue , in the nine years I ’ ve served in the US Senate , ” Sen. Mike Lee ( R-UT ) told reporters after the Senate session .
Lee and Sen. Rand Paul ( R-KY ) both said they will now support a war powers resolution led by Sen. Tim Kaine ( D-VA ) to restrict the president ’ s ability to go to war with Iran , something many Republican leaders — like South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that one of the briefers ’ response to how the administration would request an authorization for the use of military force was “ I ’ m sure we could think of something.
” And it wasn ’ t just traditional critics of Trump ’ s national security policy who were angered by the sessions : The responses from lawmakers in the briefing room have been unanimously poor .
Democrats offered some of the sharpest critiques .
“ It seemed like they didn ’ t have a lot of information they could give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House member who , like four others , spoke to me on the condition of anonymity to describe a classified briefing .
“ They don ’ t have any ” underlying facts to establish an imminent threat , the lawmaker said .
“ The information we got was no more detailed or revealing than what we ’ ve read in the news or seen on the TV.
” “ They gave us no time , place , or method ” According to multiple people in the room , Trump ’ s national security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration ’ s Iran policy and intelligence next to nothing .
“ They were evasive and the answers were unsatisfactory , ” a senior Democratic lawmaker told me .
There was really only one point on which the administration gave specific detail , another senior Democratic Congress member told me .
( Well , sort of . )
“ They did give us a window of the ‘ imminent ’ threat , but the window was so large that it doesn ’ t necessarily constitute ‘ imminent , ’ ” the lawmaker said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around what the administration has described as an imminent threat was “ days ” rather than “ weeks.
” “ They gave us no time , place , or method ” when describing the Soleimani threat , the Congress member continued .
“ Instead , we got a historical overview of decades-long malign activities from Iran .
It begs the question : Was the attack on Soleimani more in retribution for what he ’ s done , or what he was planning ?
” Others said the meeting in the House devolved into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a House Democratic aide , a Democratic lawmaker asked a difficult question , prompting the briefers to turn to a Republican for an easier question while ignoring the one just asked .
In another moment , a Democratic Congress member asked a multi-part question that briefers failed to answer fully .
When the lawmaker tried to follow up , “ they got shushed.
” What ’ s more , the defense and military officials were asked multiple direct questions about the legal justification for Trump to order a strike on Soleimani .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Joint Chiefs chair , looked uncomfortable , a Democratic aide said , and turned to their legal team because they apparently didn ’ t have the answers themselves .
“ There were no justifications , ” the Democratic aide said .
“ It was totally insufficient.
” The Senate briefing , based on both Republican and Democratic public responses , also didn ’ t go well .
“ The president has not supplied convincing evidence that his strike stopped an imminent attack on US forces .
Nothing we ’ ve seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tom Udall ( D-NM ) , who has proposed a bill to withhold funding for an Iran war unless Trump seeks congressional authorization , said on the Senate floor after the briefing .
Paul referenced claims by O ’ Brien , Trump ’ s top national security aide in the White House , who has said the 2002 authorization for war with Iraq supported the legal rationale for killing Soleimani — an Iranian — in Baghdad .
“ That is absurd , that is an insult , ” he said .
And according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ briefers didn ’ t touch on anything that would provide evidence of an “ imminent ” attack .
“ There was no way they could know for sure , ” the aide said after speaking with their boss on what happened inside the room .
“ There was nothing specific they could point to.
” After Iran ’ s weak strike on two US military targets in Iraq Tuesday night , and Trump ’ s Wednesday speech declaring Tehran aimed to deescalate tensions , it seems that neither country is currently on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind closed doors , the administration can ’ t satisfactorily answer why it nearly went to war with Iran in the first place — and that , on its own , is deeply worrying .

Democratic lawmakers with questions about the rationale behind the Trump administration’s decision to kill Iran’s Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani didn’t get the answers they wanted at the time of his death.
The administration promised all of their concerns would be addressed during Senate and House briefings on secret Iranian intelligence. Those briefings concluded Wednesday afternoon — and most Democrats (and some Republicans) are pissed.
Under questioning from House Democrats about US intelligence relating to whether Soleimani posed an imminent threat to Americans, as the Trump administration has repeatedly claimed without offering public evidence, CIA Director Gina Haspel didn’t answer directly.
“Read the report,” she said, referencing a document with intelligence relating to the Soleimani conversation. After audible sighs from lawmakers and requests for her to brief the information during Wednesday’s session, she responded matter-of-factly, “Well, it’s a lengthy report.”
That moment encapsulates why many lawmakers from both parties are frustrated with how top Trump Cabinet officials — including Haspel, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Defense Secretary Mark Esper — have handled communication about Soleimani’s death. They argue the administration failed to give them an adequate briefing as US-Iran tensions roil, and that it continues to do so.
Wednesday’s briefings showed little sign that lawmakers’ complaints will be addressed. In one case, according to a House Democratic aide, briefers were even “shushing” lawmakers who asked tough questions.
The briefings to the House and Senate were so poor that even Republicans have criticized the Trump officials’ performance.
This was “probably the worst briefing I’ve seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I’ve served in the US Senate,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) told reporters after the Senate session. Lee and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) both said they will now support a war powers resolution led by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) to restrict the president’s ability to go to war with Iran, something many Republican leaders — like South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham — have come out against.
Lee even said that one of the briefers’ response to how the administration would request an authorization for the use of military force was, “I’m sure we could think of something.”
(It is worth noting, though, that Lee and Paul were two of the four Republican senators who voted with Democrats to curtail Trump’s ability to go to war with Iran last summer.)
Republican senator Mike Lee blasts the Trump administrations post-Iran briefing, says they were told they could not dissent from Trump, couldn't debate it, and if Trump needed justification to go to war "I'm sure we could think of something" pic.twitter.com/bfyPqoSf8c — Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) January 8, 2020
And it wasn’t just traditional critics of Trump’s national security policy who were angered by the sessions: The responses from lawmakers in the briefing room have been unanimously poor. Democrats offered some of the sharpest critiques.
“It seemed like they didn’t have a lot of information they could give us,” said a senior Democratic House member who, like four others, spoke to me on the condition of anonymity to describe a classified briefing. “They don’t have any” underlying facts to establish an imminent threat, the lawmaker said. “The information we got was no more detailed or revealing than what we’ve read in the news or seen on the TV.”
“They gave us no time, place, or method”
According to multiple people in the room, Trump’s national security team gave lawmakers aiming to understand the administration’s Iran policy and intelligence next to nothing.
“They were evasive and the answers were unsatisfactory,” a senior Democratic lawmaker told me.
There was really only one point on which the administration gave specific detail, another senior Democratic Congress member told me. (Well, sort of.)
“They did give us a window on the ‘imminent’ threat, but the window was so large that it doesn’t necessarily constitute ‘imminent,’” the lawmaker said, adding that the stated time frame around what the administration has described as an imminent threat was “days” rather than “weeks.”
“They gave us no time, place, or method” when describing the Soleimani threat, the Congress member continued. “Instead, we got a historical overview of decades-long malign activities from Iran. It begs the question: Was the attack on Soleimani more in retribution for what he’s done, or what he was planning?”
Others said the meeting in the House devolved into pettiness. In one instance, according to a House Democratic aide, a Democratic lawmaker asked a difficult question, prompting the briefers to turn to a Republican for an easier question while ignoring the one just asked. In another moment, a Democratic Congress member asked a multi-part question that briefers failed to answer fully. When the lawmaker tried to follow up, “they got shushed.”
What’s more, the defense and military officials were asked multiple direct questions about the legal justification for Trump to order a strike on Soleimani. Both Esper and Army Gen. Mark Milley, the Joint Chiefs chair, looked uncomfortable, a Democratic aide said, and turned to their legal team because they apparently didn’t have the answers themselves. “There were no justifications,” the Democratic aide said. “It was totally insufficient.”
The Senate briefing, based on both Republican and Democratic public responses, also didn’t go well. “The president has not supplied convincing evidence that his strike stopped an imminent attack on US forces. Nothing we’ve seen has changed my mind,” Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), who has proposed a bill to withhold funding for an Iran war unless Trump seeks congressional authorization, said on the Senate floor after the briefing.
Paul referenced claims by O’Brien, Trump’s top national security aide in the White House, who has said the 2002 authorization for war with Iraq supported the legal rationale for killing Soleimani — an Iranian — in Baghdad. “That is absurd, that is an insult,” he said.
And according to a Democratic Senate aide, the briefers didn’t touch on anything that would provide evidence of an “imminent” attack. “There was no way they could know for sure,” the aide said after speaking with their boss on what happened inside the room. “There was nothing specific they could point to.”
After Iran’s weak strike on two US military targets in Iraq Tuesday night, and Trump’s Wednesday speech declaring Tehran aimed to deescalate tensions, it seems that neither country is currently on the path to war. Still, even behind closed doors, the administration can’t satisfactorily answer why it nearly went to war with Iran in the first place — and that, on its own, is deeply worrying.
Li Zhou contributed to this report.


vox--2020-01-08--A Ukrainian plane crashed in Iran: What we know

Hours after Iran launched an attack against US forces stationed in Iraq in retaliation for the killing of Quds Force leader Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani , a passenger plane carrying 176 people crashed near Tehran .
No one aboard the airplane is believed to have survived the crash , which happened Wednesday morning local time .
The plane , a Ukraine International Airlines flight from Tehran to Kyiv , was a Boeing 737-800 — not a 737 Max , the Boeing plane plagued by technical issues that has been grounded after being involved in two deadly crashes in 2018 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crash site , told the Associated Press he initially believed the US was retaliating for the strike on coalition forces in Iraq : “ I heard a massive explosion and all the houses started to shake .
There was fire everywhere .
At first I thought [ the Americans ] have hit here with missiles and went in the basement as a shelter .
After a while , I went out and saw a plane has crashed over there .
Body parts were lying around everywhere.
” There is currently no evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ related to any military action .
The cause of the crash is still under investigation .
Yevhen Dykhne , Ukrainian International Airlines ’ president , seemed to suggest he doesn ’ t believe pilot error to be at fault .
He said Wednesday , “ It is impossible that there were mistakes by the crew.
” He also called the 737 , which was bought new in 2016 , “ one of the best planes we had.
” The story is still developing .
Here ’ s what we know , and what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752 , a 3.5-year-old Boeing 737-800 , departed Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport at 6:12 am local time after sitting on the runway for roughly an hour .
• Shortly after takeoff , the plane crashed in farmland near Shahedshahr , a town about 30 miles southwest of Tehran and about 10 miles northwest of the airport .
• All 176 people — 167 passengers and nine crew members — on board are believed to have died .
• Ukraine International Airlines has published a list of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prystaiko , Ukraine ’ s foreign minister , said there were 82 Iranians , 63 Canadians , 11 Ukrainians ( two passengers and the nine crew members ) , 10 Swedish nationals , four Afghans , three Germans , and three British nationals on board .
• The plane ’ s black box ( which records instrument readings and pilot conversations ) has been recovered and is in Iran ’ s possession .
• Ali Abedzadeh , Iran ’ s top civilian aviation official , said the country will not give the box @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Experts have said analysis may be difficult without Boeing ’ s assistance .
Abedzadeh said data would be shared with Ukraine .
• Ukrainian International Airlines , founded as Ukraine ’ s flag-carrier airline , has temporarily suspended all flights to Tehran .
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky directed Ukrainian prosecutors to begin a criminal inquiry into the crash , and said he ’ s sending “ a team of experts ” to Iran to help with “ the investigation , identification and repatriation of the bodies of Ukrainians killed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affected countries have extended their condolences to the victims ’ families , and have offered their countries ’ expertise to investigators .
Canada ’ s foreign minister , for instance , said , “ Our hearts are with the loved ones of the victims , including many Canadians.
” What we don ’ t know • The cause of the crash — Iran ’ s state news agency has reported an engine fire was the cause ; Ukrainian officials issued a similar statement before retracting it , citing the need for more information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Iran ’ s missile attacks .
Ahead of its investigation , Iran has said a technical malfunction is to blame .
US national security officials reportedly told lawmakers Wednesday that no current intelligence suggests the plane was shot down .

Just a few hours after Iran launched an attack against US bases in Iraq in retaliation for the US killing of Qassem Soleimani, a Boeing passenger jet bound for Ukraine crashed shortly after it took off from Tehran. All 176 people on board — including 82 Iranians, at least 63 Canadians, and 11 Ukrainians — were killed.
Iran originally claimed the crash was not caused by any military action. However, by Saturday morning, Iranian officials admitted the plane was shot down after it “took the flying posture and altitude of an enemy target.”
Iranian officials called the act the result of “human error,” and President Hassan Rouhani apologized in a statement on Twitter, writing, “The Islamic Republic of Iran deeply regrets this disastrous mistake. My thoughts and prayers go to all the mourning families. I offer my sincerest condolences.”
The admission followed Thursday reports by the US and Canada that their intelligence agencies had found a missile was responsible for the crash.
“We have intelligence from multiple sources, including our allies and our own intelligence,” Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Thursday afternoon. “The evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile. It may well have been unintentional.”
Trudeau declined to elaborate on the evidence, but said that these developments confirmed “the need to have an in-depth investigation into this matter.”
And shortly after Trudeau’s address, the New York Times published a video showing the airliner being hit by what appeared to be a missile.
Despite the statements by the US and Canada — as well as the Times’ release of the video — Iran continued to deny that a missile felled the plane. Iranian officials accused the US of “spreading lies.”
Now, however, the country’s leaders have reversed course, leading Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to demand the Iranian government “bring those responsible to justice, return of the bodies of the deceased, pay compensations, issue official apologies through diplomatic channels.”
Zelensky also said Ukrainians “expect that Iran assures its readiness to have a full and open investigation.”
Rouhani promised Saturday that these steps will be taken, writing in a statement, “Further investigation is needed to identify all the causes and roots of this tragedy and prosecute the perpetrators of this unforgivable mistake.”
The Iranian leader also promised military procedures would be changed “to make sure such a disaster is never repeated.”
What we know
What we don’t know
When the airline carriers’ suspensions of flights to and through Tehran will be lifted
Updates to this article have ended — the latest on the crash and US-Iran relations can be found here.


vox--2020-01-08--The case against killing Qassem Soleimani

This is the first of a two-part series examining the arguments for and against the Trump administration ’ s decision to kill Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
Read the case for the targeting of Soleimani here .
Last Thursday , the Trump administration authorized a drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani , the head of Iran ’ s paramilitary forces and one of the most powerful men in the country .
The attack has ignited a debate about whether it was legal and worth the risk .
Previous administrations had the opportunity to take out Soleimani and chose not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would lead to a series of dangerous escalations on both sides .
Prominent Republicans like Texas Rep. Will Hurd have defended the strike , claiming Soleimani had plenty of American blood on his hands and posed an immediate and continuing danger .
Bilal Saab , an analyst at the Middle East Institute , told Vox that America was already locked in a cycle of violence with Iran and there were no guarantees that the Iranians weren ’ t going to escalate in any case , so eliminating Soleimani may have been worth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the other side , apart from the questions of legality , is that it was an unnecessary and extremely dangerous move that risked catapulting the two countries into a full-scale war .
There ’ s also the possibility that Iran will accelerate its pursuit of nuclear weapons .
I spoke with Dina Esfandiary , an Iran expert at the Century Foundation think tank , to hear the best case against the attack .
I wanted to know why she thought it was a mistake to kill Soleimani , how she responded to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen next .
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows .
What would you say is the most immediate consequence of Trump ’ s decision to authorize the strike against Soleimani ?
The first consequence , and the one that we ’ ve seen already in the last couple of days , is domestic .
The Iranian population has been facing severe economic sanctions from the US over the last year or so , but before that the Iranian people had been displaying significant discontent with their own government .
We saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That has all taken a back burner now and we ’ ve seen a huge show of unity across the political spectrum of Iranians in response to the killing [ of Soleimani ] .
They may not be happy with their current government , but they ’ d rather stick with that when faced with an external attack like this .
Pretty much everyone agrees that Soleimani was a malicious actor who was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and that we ’ re safer with him gone .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity was there ?
Because the problem with doing that is that you ’ ve unleashed a Pandora ’ s box of problems for Americans in the region .
The Iranians have to retaliate at some point .
And I suspect that what they ’ re now doing is putting their heads together to figure out the best way to do that without risking an all-out conventional war against the US , which they would lose .
I ’ d also say that , sure , not having Soleimani around is great , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a one-man show .
So now you have this entire organization that will basically be given free rein to go out and target American troops in the region , which they may very well do .
“ This is definitely not the end .
Iran is known for playing the long game , and that ’ s what it will do ” If it ’ s true that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the region , do we have an imperative to neutralize their ability to carry out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contain Iran , but containing Iran requires much more than brazenly targeting high-level Iranian officials , which does nothing but create anger both on an official level in Iran but also among the Iranian population .
This matters because to have any chance at long-term success , Americans need to win the support of the Iranian people .
At the very least , the US should be trying to foster a better relationship with Iranians .
So targeting high-level Iranian officials doesn ’ t really achieve anything other than making it all more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you ’ re then giving Iran additional motivation to turn around and target US assets and US troops in the region .
The US just announced that it was going to deploy an additional 3,000 or 3,500 troops .
All I see is an additional 3,000 targets for Iranians .
And I suspect that ’ s how Iran is going to view it as well .
One argument I ’ ve heard is that the Trump administration set a red line by warning the Iranian regime not to kill any more Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by killing an American contractor .
Does the US have an obligation to enforce a red line like that once it ’ s been drawn ?
I do think that the US has an obligation to enforce that kind of a red line .
But I also believe that it could have done without killing General Soleimani , which ultimately will end up going against American objectives .
But yes , when a red line is set , you ’ re going to have to uphold that .
Otherwise , there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to begin with .
And that ’ s what we saw with President Obama ’ s red line in Syria .
Even Trump , throughout the last few months , made statement after statement saying that Iran shouldn ’ t do this and shouldn ’ t do that and that we ’ d to respond to it .
But ultimately , when Iran shot down a US drone a few months ago , or targeted oil tankers , or more recently attacked Saudi oil facilities in the region , the US didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so Iran did what it does best , which is testing the ground to see what it can get away with and how much it can actually escalate .
Is there a case to be made that Iran invited this escalation by showing little restraint in killing Americans , not just recently but over the last few decades ?
The anti-American stance of the Iranian government is absolutely problematic .
It was problematic when the Islamic revolution happened in 1979 and it still is today .
The only difference between then and now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significantly more pragmatic in the way that it pursues its goals .
The problem is that the latest spate of Iranian aggression has been the direct result of President Trump removing the US from the 2015 nuclear deal .
And then President Trump embarking on this wide maximum-pressure campaign against the Iranians .
So if you look at it from Iran ’ s perspective , and particularly from the perspective of everyday Iranians , they don ’ t really understand why they ’ re now facing this situation today .
The Iranian people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we joined the nuclear deal , we then implemented the nuclear deal , and yet a few years after that , we ’ re facing some of the most dire sanctions and dire consequences that we have faced in a long time .
So the Iranian people don ’ t really understand why this is happening to them , and it ’ s fomenting anti-Americanism .
The killing of Soleimani will only accelerate this .
Another argument is that Iran has not been deterred by any of our previous actions , so an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Do you buy that ?
Not at all .
I actually think Iran has been deterred by previous efforts to contain it .
And more importantly , Iran has demonstrated that when faced with the option to improve its own situation , it is willing to compromise .
So the nuclear deal openly demonstrated that Iran was willing to compromise and we were able to contain Iran ’ s nuclear program for a good chunk of time .
There was no reason why the US could not have engaged Iran in further discussions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It has been shown time and again that engagement with Iran is the best way to ensure that it is contained , rather than increasing pressure and manipulative threats where all Iran does is feel cornered and then lashes out .
“ The problem is that there will be an escalation of tensions in the region — and once that happens , there is no off-ramp ” Rep. Will Hurd defended the killing of Soleimani by saying that whoever replaces him at the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps ( IRGC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over his shoulder , and that that is its own kind of deterrent .
How do you respond to that ?
I disagree .
I think that the guys that are part of the Revolutionary Guards are there because they ’ re pursuing a cause and they believe in that cause .
On top of that , they are military men .
They ’ re used to being on the battlefield .
They ’ re used to looking over their shoulder .
A threat from an American politician isn ’ t going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument that says the US can ’ t really do anything to stop Iran from attacking it in small-scale ways , like deploying its proxies in Iraq , but that killing Soleimani is so severe that it may prevent Iran from considering larger-scale attacks , like shutting down the Strait of Hormuz or staging a big attack on Americans .
Of course , you could argue the exact opposite , but I ’ m curious how you respond to this point ?
Iran has not done anything big or catastrophic .
It has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It has not closed the Strait of Hormuz even though it has constantly threatened to do it .
The Iranian government knows that conventionally it ’ s much weaker than the United States .
There is no way that the Iranian government is willing to engage in a conventional , full-scale war with the US , because it knows it would lose .
So Iran does what Iran does best , which is lash out on a small scale in different arenas .
That won ’ t result in heavy losses for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nuisance to Americans .
And now that the red line of targeting American lives has been crossed and the US has assassinated Soleimani , it now means that all US troops in the region are fair game .
What about the case that killing Soleimani means undercutting the regime ’ s aggressive expansionist policy in the Middle East — is there at least a strategic defense of the decision on that front ?
Sadly , no .
Because the Revolutionary Guards are not a one-man show .
Soleimani has left big shoes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his career on personal relationships on the ground in the region , which is part of the reason why he was so successful .
He was certainly an astute military strategist and was remarkably effective , but he ’ s not irreplaceable .
And the person who has been appointed to take over from him was his deputy .
So he has intimate knowledge of how Soleimani worked , presumably went on missions with him , so may already know some of the people that Soleimani had built relationships with .
He will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those same personal relations that Soleimani had built .
But I think that it ’ s a challenge that can be overcome relatively easily and he will have at his disposal the means of the Revolutionary Guards , who are quite keen to ensure that there ’ s continuity in Iranian policy in the region .
The administration has stated that Soleimani represented an imminent threat .
If it ’ s true — and I want to emphasize the “ if ” — that Soleimani was an imminent threat , would that change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t think so .
His assassination was always going to make the situation in the region more unstable , more uncertain .
Had there really been an imminent attack planned on the US , then I trust that the US would have found another way to ensure that that attack did not happen .
And I ’ m sure there would ’ ve been other ways to do it besides assassinating Soleimani .
If , after all , you can assassinate him , I presume you could also grab and detain him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have prevented the attack .
So how do you expect this situation to unfold over the coming weeks and months ?
I don ’ t think that we ’ re going to end up in a scenario where there ’ s going to be an all-out conventional war between the US and Iran .
I am hoping that cooler heads prevail in Tehran , if for no other reason than they don ’ t want to lose a war .
The problem is that there will be an escalation of tensions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is no off-ramp .
And there ’ s no plausible scenario in which Iranian officials would contemplate dialogue with the US .
Now that Soleimani has been assassinated , any Iranian official that sought compromise with the US would be signing his own death warrant politically — and maybe even literally .
So how do we stop this from spiraling out of control ?
I could perhaps foresee a situation where there is a mediator that brings the US and Iran together , but again , that ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So the problem isn ’ t so much that things are going to go bang tomorrow ; it ’ s that there ’ s going to be a sustained increase of tensions in the region without an off-ramp to stop it .
Below are Esfandiary ’ s responses to additional questions I asked her following the Iranian strikes against the US in Iraq on January 7 .
Now that Iran has retaliated with a missile attack on US military targets in Iraq , does that change your views at all ?
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything , it just highlights why it was the wrong course of action for President Trump to take .
The missile strikes were in response to the assassination of Soleimani , and it was inevitable that Iran would do something like this , because it could not leave the US measure unpunished — especially after the large crowds of Iranians we saw for Soleimani ’ s funeral .
Iran ensured its reaction would demonstrate its capability to target US assets in the region but thankfully resulted in no loss of life , giving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Do you expect more retaliation down the road from Iran ?
Or do you think this might end the cycle of escalation ?
This is definitely not the end .
Iran is known for playing the long game , and that ’ s what it will do .
That doesn ’ t mean it will be on the same scale as the attacks we saw last night , but it won ’ t stop .

This is the first of a two-part series examining the arguments for and against the Trump administration’s decision to kill Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Read the case for the targeting of Soleimani here.
Last Thursday, the Trump administration authorized a drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s paramilitary forces and one of the most powerful men in the country.
The attack has ignited a debate about whether it was legal and worth the risk. Previous administrations had the opportunity to take out Soleimani and chose not to, mostly because of concerns that it would lead to a series of dangerous escalations on both sides.
Prominent Republicans like Texas Rep. Will Hurd have defended the strike, claiming Soleimani had plenty of American blood on his hands and posed an immediate and continuing danger.
Bilal Saab, an analyst at the Middle East Institute, told Vox that America was already locked in a cycle of violence with Iran and there were no guarantees that the Iranians weren’t going to escalate in any case, so eliminating Soleimani may have been worth the risk.
The most common objection on the other side, apart from the questions of legality, is that it was an unnecessary and extremely dangerous move that risked catapulting the two countries into a full-scale war. There’s also the possibility that Iran will accelerate its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
I spoke with Dina Esfandiary, an Iran expert at the Century Foundation think tank, to hear the best case against the attack. I wanted to know why she thought it was a mistake to kill Soleimani, how she responded to detractors, and what she thinks will happen next.
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
(Author’s note: I spoke to Esfandiary just a few hours before Iran retaliated on Tuesday night by firing missiles at US military targets in Iraq. I contacted her again after to see if Iran’s response had altered her views. Her answer is included at the end.)
Sean Illing
What would you say is the most immediate consequence of Trump’s decision to authorize the strike against Soleimani?
Dina Esfandiary
The first consequence, and the one that we’ve seen already in the last couple of days, is domestic. The Iranian population has been facing severe economic sanctions from the US over the last year or so, but before that the Iranian people had been displaying significant discontent with their own government. We saw this recently with protests in November.
That has all taken a back burner now and we’ve seen a huge show of unity across the political spectrum of Iranians in response to the killing [of Soleimani]. They may not be happy with their current government, but they’d rather stick with that when faced with an external attack like this.
Sean Illing
Pretty much everyone agrees that Soleimani was a malicious actor who was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and that we’re safer with him gone. So why not eliminate the threat if the opportunity was there?
Dina Esfandiary
Because the problem with doing that is that you’ve unleashed a Pandora’s box of problems for Americans in the region. The Iranians have to retaliate at some point. And I suspect that what they’re now doing is putting their heads together to figure out the best way to do that without risking an all-out conventional war against the US, which they would lose.
I’d also say that, sure, not having Soleimani around is great, but Iran’s paramilitary force is not a one-man show. So now you have this entire organization that will basically be given free rein to go out and target American troops in the region, which they may very well do.
“This is definitely not the end. Iran is known for playing the long game, and that’s what it will do”
Sean Illing
If it’s true that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the region, do we have an imperative to neutralize their ability to carry out that policy?
Dina Esfandiary
The United States should contain Iran, but containing Iran requires much more than brazenly targeting high-level Iranian officials, which does nothing but create anger both on an official level in Iran but also among the Iranian population.
This matters because to have any chance at long-term success, Americans need to win the support of the Iranian people. At the very least, the US should be trying to foster a better relationship with Iranians.
So targeting high-level Iranian officials doesn’t really achieve anything other than making it all more dangerous — because on top of that, you’re then giving Iran additional motivation to turn around and target US assets and US troops in the region.
The US just announced that it was going to deploy an additional 3,000 or 3,500 troops. All I see is an additional 3,000 targets for Iranians. And I suspect that’s how Iran is going to view it as well.
Sean Illing
One argument I’ve heard is that the Trump administration set a red line by warning the Iranian regime not to kill any more Americans, and then the regime crossed it by killing an American contractor. Does the US have an obligation to enforce a red line like that once it’s been drawn?
Dina Esfandiary
I do think that the US has an obligation to enforce that kind of a red line. But I also believe that it could have done without killing General Soleimani, which ultimately will end up going against American objectives. But yes, when a red line is set, you’re going to have to uphold that. Otherwise, there’s no point in setting a red line to begin with. And that’s what we saw with President Obama’s red line in Syria.
Even Trump, throughout the last few months, made statement after statement saying that Iran shouldn’t do this and shouldn’t do that and that we’d to respond to it. But ultimately, when Iran shot down a US drone a few months ago, or targeted oil tankers, or more recently attacked Saudi oil facilities in the region, the US didn’t really respond very forcefully.
And so Iran did what it does best, which is testing the ground to see what it can get away with and how much it can actually escalate.
Sean Illing
Is there a case to be made that Iran invited this escalation by showing little restraint in killing Americans, not just recently but over the last few decades?
Dina Esfandiary
The anti-American stance of the Iranian government is absolutely problematic. It was problematic when the Islamic revolution happened in 1979 and it still is today. The only difference between then and now is that the Iranian system has become significantly more pragmatic in the way that it pursues its goals.
The problem is that the latest spate of Iranian aggression has been the direct result of President Trump removing the US from the 2015 nuclear deal. And then President Trump embarking on this wide maximum-pressure campaign against the Iranians.
So if you look at it from Iran’s perspective, and particularly from the perspective of everyday Iranians, they don’t really understand why they’re now facing this situation today. The Iranian people believe that we made our concessions, we joined the nuclear deal, we then implemented the nuclear deal, and yet a few years after that, we’re facing some of the most dire sanctions and dire consequences that we have faced in a long time.
So the Iranian people don’t really understand why this is happening to them, and it’s fomenting anti-Americanism. The killing of Soleimani will only accelerate this.
Sean Illing
Another argument is that Iran has not been deterred by any of our previous actions, so an escalation of some kind was necessary. Do you buy that?
Dina Esfandiary
Not at all. I actually think Iran has been deterred by previous efforts to contain it. And more importantly, Iran has demonstrated that when faced with the option to improve its own situation, it is willing to compromise. So the nuclear deal openly demonstrated that Iran was willing to compromise and we were able to contain Iran’s nuclear program for a good chunk of time.
There was no reason why the US could not have engaged Iran in further discussions after the nuclear deal had been implemented. It has been shown time and again that engagement with Iran is the best way to ensure that it is contained, rather than increasing pressure and manipulative threats where all Iran does is feel cornered and then lashes out.
“The problem is that there will be an escalation of tensions in the region — and once that happens, there is no off-ramp”
Sean Illing
Rep. Will Hurd defended the killing of Soleimani by saying that whoever replaces him at the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) will now be forced to look over his shoulder, and that that is its own kind of deterrent. How do you respond to that?
Dina Esfandiary
I disagree. I think that the guys that are part of the Revolutionary Guards are there because they’re pursuing a cause and they believe in that cause. On top of that, they are military men. They’re used to being on the battlefield. They’re used to looking over their shoulder. A threat from an American politician isn’t going to change that.
Sean Illing
There’s another argument that says the US can’t really do anything to stop Iran from attacking it in small-scale ways, like deploying its proxies in Iraq, but that killing Soleimani is so severe that it may prevent Iran from considering larger-scale attacks, like shutting down the Strait of Hormuz or staging a big attack on Americans. Of course, you could argue the exact opposite, but I’m curious how you respond to this point?
Dina Esfandiary
Iran has not done anything big or catastrophic. It has not targeted Americans in a drastic manner. It has not closed the Strait of Hormuz even though it has constantly threatened to do it. The Iranian government knows that conventionally it’s much weaker than the United States. There is no way that the Iranian government is willing to engage in a conventional, full-scale war with the US, because it knows it would lose.
So Iran does what Iran does best, which is lash out on a small scale in different arenas. That won’t result in heavy losses for the US, but it will be a nuisance to Americans. And now that the red line of targeting American lives has been crossed and the US has assassinated Soleimani, it now means that all US troops in the region are fair game.
Sean Illing
What about the case that killing Soleimani means undercutting the regime’s aggressive expansionist policy in the Middle East — is there at least a strategic defense of the decision on that front?
Dina Esfandiary
Sadly, no. Because the Revolutionary Guards are not a one-man show. Soleimani has left big shoes to fill, yes. He built his career on personal relationships on the ground in the region, which is part of the reason why he was so successful. He was certainly an astute military strategist and was remarkably effective, but he’s not irreplaceable.
And the person who has been appointed to take over from him was his deputy. So he has intimate knowledge of how Soleimani worked, presumably went on missions with him, so may already know some of the people that Soleimani had built relationships with.
He will face a challenge in terms of building those same personal relations that Soleimani had built. But I think that it’s a challenge that can be overcome relatively easily and he will have at his disposal the means of the Revolutionary Guards, who are quite keen to ensure that there’s continuity in Iranian policy in the region.
Sean Illing
The administration has stated that Soleimani represented an imminent threat. If it’s true — and I want to emphasize the “if” — that Soleimani was an imminent threat, would that change your opinion at all?
Dina Esfandiary
I don’t think so. His assassination was always going to make the situation in the region more unstable, more uncertain. Had there really been an imminent attack planned on the US, then I trust that the US would have found another way to ensure that that attack did not happen.
And I’m sure there would’ve been other ways to do it besides assassinating Soleimani. If, after all, you can assassinate him, I presume you could also grab and detain him. So there are likely other ways to have prevented the attack.
Sean Illing
So how do you expect this situation to unfold over the coming weeks and months?
Dina Esfandiary
I don’t think that we’re going to end up in a scenario where there’s going to be an all-out conventional war between the US and Iran. I am hoping that cooler heads prevail in Tehran, if for no other reason than they don’t want to lose a war.
The problem is that there will be an escalation of tensions in the region — and once that happens, there is no off-ramp. And there’s no plausible scenario in which Iranian officials would contemplate dialogue with the US. Now that Soleimani has been assassinated, any Iranian official that sought compromise with the US would be signing his own death warrant politically — and maybe even literally. So how do we stop this from spiraling out of control?
I could perhaps foresee a situation where there is a mediator that brings the US and Iran together, but again, that’s going to be very, very difficult for Iran. So the problem isn’t so much that things are going to go bang tomorrow; it’s that there’s going to be a sustained increase of tensions in the region without an off-ramp to stop it.
Below are Esfandiary’s responses to additional questions I asked her following the Iranian strikes against the US in Iraq on January 7.
Sean Illing
Now that Iran has retaliated with a missile attack on US military targets in Iraq, does that change your views at all?
Dina Esfandiary
No, it doesn’t. If anything, it just highlights why it was the wrong course of action for President Trump to take.
The missile strikes were in response to the assassination of Soleimani, and it was inevitable that Iran would do something like this, because it could not leave the US measure unpunished — especially after the large crowds of Iranians we saw for Soleimani’s funeral.
Iran ensured its reaction would demonstrate its capability to target US assets in the region but thankfully resulted in no loss of life, giving President Trump an off-ramp from escalation.
Sean Illing
Do you expect more retaliation down the road from Iran? Or do you think this might end the cycle of escalation?
Dina Esfandiary
This is definitely not the end. Iran is known for playing the long game, and that’s what it will do. That doesn’t mean it will be on the same scale as the attacks we saw last night, but it won’t stop.


vox--2020-01-08--The case for killing Qassem Soleimani

The case for killing Qassem Soleimani

This is the second of a two-part series examining the arguments for and against the Trump administration ’ s decision to kill Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
Read the case against the targeting of Soleimani here .
Last Thursday , the Trump administration authorized a drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani , the head of Iran ’ s paramilitary forces and one of the most powerful men in the country .
The attack has ignited a debate about whether or not it was legal and worth the risk .
Previous administrations had the opportunity to take out Soleimani and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns that it would lead to a series of dangerous escalations on both sides .
Dina Esfandiary , an Iran expert at the Century Foundation think tank , told Vox that the Soleimani strike was an unnecessary and extremely dangerous move that risked catapulting the two countries into a full-scale war .
There ’ s also the possibility that Iran will accelerate its pursuit of nuclear weapons .
But not everyone feels that way , as some believe the assassination was a necessary move to deter Iran from further threatening Americans in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bilal Saab , an expert at the Middle East Institute and a former Pentagon official in the Trump administration , is one of those people .
So I asked him for the best case for the attack on Soleimani .
I wanted to know why he thought it was the right call , why those advocating against it are misguided , and what he expects will happen next .
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows .
Right off the bat : What ’ s the main reason for why killing Soleimani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to put this in the context of the last few months .
The spate of attacks that gradually escalated , whether directly by the Iranians or sponsored by the Iranians in the Persian Gulf , leading all the way to the attack on Saudi oil fields in September , required some kind of a response by the Americans .
The US position has always been to deter the Iranians from fomenting instability in the Middle East , and from waging violent attacks against our collective interests .
We ’ ve done none of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aspect of deterrence .
Correcting that required a major shift in approach in terms of how we actually succeed at deterring the Iranians .
There had to be some kind of a shocking operation against Iran that would make the regime recalculate and reconsider this campaign of violence that they ’ ve waged against us and our partners .
You ’ re saying the US was overdue in sending a strong message ?
Yes , in sending the strongest message : that the United States really means business in terms of the Iranians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Trump administration took out someone who represents the face of Iran ’ s dangerous campaign in the region wasn ’ t only appropriate , it was well within the rules of the game .
The US not going after targets in Iran proper also lends further credence to the argument that this was fair game .
So I ’ m not against the assassination , even though there are some legal questions about it .
But I do have a big worry : that taking Soleimani out should be part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communicating across US government agencies and also to our partners in the region .
The fact that it seems to be an isolated incident , though , is the problem .
Iran has already threatened to exact “ revenge ” on the US .
Doesn ’ t that undercut the deterrence argument ?
If deterrence was supposed to stop Iran from targeting Americans or US interests , the fact that they are likely to do so again makes it seem like deterrence didn ’ t work .
That ’ s a good question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear and precise about what exactly we are deterring .
I am of the opinion that we were not going to be able to deter the Iranians from engaging violently against us across the board .
What we ’ re trying to deter here is really the more egregious acts , the more provocative acts by the Iranians against us and our partners .
We ’ re trying to stop another attack like the one on the Saudi oil fields or having Iran close the Strait of Hormuz , those larger-scale moves that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US didn ’ t respond .
The goal , then , is to shock the Iranians and force them to recalculate what targets they choose , the severity of it , the lethality .
But we ’ re just not in any position to deter acts of lower-intensity violence , so we ’ re going after the big stuff , basically .
I could be proven wrong .
We ’ ll see what happens and how the Iranians respond to this .
My guess is that given the very unpredictable nature of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially after pulling off something dramatic like this , the Iranians are surely confused and shocked .
I think Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said it best recently when he said that “ the game has changed.
” By that I think he meant that whatever the Iranians entertained before , as far as attacking options , they can no longer go back to that menu and use it again .
I think it ’ s a good thing for Tehran to be perplexed and confused about what the president is capable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wage such an attack against their top operative in the Middle East .
Now they ’ re wondering what could be next .
So they ’ re going to be very , very careful , and they ’ re going to calibrate their revenge operations .
But Iran was never likely to respond in a highly provocative way , was it ?
Because it ’ s worried about getting into a full-blown war with the US , which it would lose .
So Iran was going to be conducting low-level attacks against Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have more incentive to do something a little more dramatic after Soleimani ’ s killing .
There are still some details to hammer out about how imminent the threat to Americans was or still may be .
Putting that aside , what seemingly triggered Trump ’ s response was the killing of the American contractor in Iraq [ on December 27 ] and the attempt at storming the US Embassy in Iraq [ on December 31 ] .
Those are American targets , and the president has been quite consistent on this : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at risk , or a single American dies , the US is going to lash out .
We ’ re going to be very forceful with our response — and that ’ s exactly what happened .
If the Iranians are smart enough , they ’ ll once again go back to asymmetric warfare against our more vulnerable partners , and they ’ ll try to maintain plausible deniability while working through proxies .
I don ’ t think that they would be stupid enough to really wage direct warfare against American troops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , conventional advantage of the US in that dynamic .
However , Iran has signaled that it ’ s targeting US military sites , so we ’ ll see if they ’ re going to actually follow through those threats .
Whether or not Soleimani deserved his fate , was the timing — the decision to kill him now —well advised ?
Tensions with the US and Iran have spiked dramatically since Trump withdrew America from the nuclear deal in 2018 .
One could argue there was a less provocative time to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a collision course driven by incoherent US policy .
That ’ s the bottom line here .
That ’ s is the crux of this argument.
” Identify for me a good time where you can actually take out such a high-value person .
There ’ s just never a “ good ” time .
There ’ s always risk , but the administration calculated that the risk is worth the reward in this case .
I think the administration wanted to nip this in the bud before the Iranians really do something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and interests in the region .
Was it worth this trouble and danger , though ?
Do the benefits really outweigh the costs , especially when the chance of a full-blown war rises , even if it ’ s still unlikely ?
Once again , you have to weigh that against what the Iranians might have done had we not considered any response options .
We were already on a pattern of escalation caused by the Iranians .
Now , you can go back to history and say , “ We screwed up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Okay , that ’ s fine .
But at least over the past few months , we ’ ve seen a spate of attacks by the Iranians against us and against collective interests .
The fair assumption would have been that the Iranians would have continued along that path until they miscalculated or they overplayed their hand .
I think they started doing that when [ members of the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia ] tried to storm the US Embassy in Baghdad .
So let ’ s imagine we didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then Iran still does something stupid , which forces us to respond swiftly and decisively , which also would increase the chances of a war just like what you just characterized .
Would that really have been any different than this situation ?
We were already on a collision course driven by incoherent US policy .
That ’ s the bottom line here .
That ’ s the crux of this argument .
It ’ s not really about Soleimani .
It ’ s not about the assassination .
It ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coherent policy towards the Iranians that actually has an achievable end goal .
Whether we had killed Soleimani or not , Iran would have miscalculated or the US would have miscalculated .
“ What worries the Iranians most is when the US is coherent and united with our allies , when we have a firm , consistent stance and we ’ re together .
We ’ ve got none of those things right now.
” There were reports that the Pentagon gave Trump other options to choose from , like bombing Iranian missile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soleimani .
Would those options have been more escalatory , in your mind ?
Especially since targeting missile sites likely would ’ ve meant striking inside Iranian territory , whereas Soleimani was killed while he was in Iraq ?
Absolutely , I think we would be in a different ballgame .
There are almost these unwritten rules of the game , that if we limit our confrontation to the region , then the chances of open-ended confrontation and all-out war wouldn ’ t be as high .
But if we go after them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different situation .
So how does this end ?
How do we get out of this cycle of violence ?
I don ’ t think this ends .
This is just a perpetual struggle between the two countries , and an especially tense one now with this administration .
Since Iran doesn ’ t talk , I don ’ t think either side can deescalate at this point beyond just striking fear in the heart of the enemy .
I ’ m of the opinion , and I could easily be wrong , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point , or at least forced Iran to reconsider what is permissible and what is not permissible .
But , as you said , the US not having a coherent strategy against Iran could likely lead to more decades of violence .
Absolutely .
In fact , you know what would deter the Iranians ?
A coherent policy , and we don ’ t have that .
What worries the Iranians most is when the US is coherent and united with our allies , when we have a firm , consistent stance and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve got none of those things right now .
There ’ s a huge gap between us and the Europeans .
We also don ’ t sing from the same sheet of music with our own partners in the region .
Yet here we are taking out Iranian leaders without really contemplating what the next step is .
How can we actually encourage Iranians , and not just force them , to come to the negotiating table ?
We clearly haven ’ t done that thinking yet .
So it ’ s fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have had a good effect for now , but it ’ s obviously not enough on the whole to deal with Iran ?
Below is Saab ’ s response to the question I asked him following the Iranian strikes against the US in Iraq on Tuesday night .
Did Iran ’ s attack change your thinking on whether killing Soleimani was a good idea or not ?
Not at all .
If anything , it shows the Soleimani strike worked .
Iran ’ s attack wasn ’ t a major retaliation , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis .
It ’ s pretty clear now that Trump did shock the Iranians with killing Soleimani , and we just saw that in real time .

This is the second of a two-part series examining the arguments for and against the Trump administration’s decision to kill Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Read the case against the targeting of Soleimani here.
Last Thursday, the Trump administration authorized a drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s paramilitary forces and one of the most powerful men in the country.
The attack has ignited a debate about whether or not it was legal and worth the risk. Previous administrations had the opportunity to take out Soleimani and chose not to, mostly because of concerns that it would lead to a series of dangerous escalations on both sides.
Dina Esfandiary, an Iran expert at the Century Foundation think tank, told Vox that the Soleimani strike was an unnecessary and extremely dangerous move that risked catapulting the two countries into a full-scale war. There’s also the possibility that Iran will accelerate its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
But not everyone feels that way, as some believe the assassination was a necessary move to deter Iran from further threatening Americans in the Middle East and around the world.
Bilal Saab, an expert at the Middle East Institute and a former Pentagon official in the Trump administration, is one of those people. So I asked him for the best case for the attack on Soleimani. I wanted to know why he thought it was the right call, why those advocating against it are misguided, and what he expects will happen next.
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
(Note: I spoke to Saab just a few hours before Iran retaliated on Tuesday night by firing missiles at US military targets in Iraq. I contacted him after to see if Iran’s response had altered his views. His answer is included at the end.)
Alex Ward
Right off the bat: What’s the main reason for why killing Soleimani was a good idea?
Bilal Saab
You have to put this in the context of the last few months. The spate of attacks that gradually escalated, whether directly by the Iranians or sponsored by the Iranians in the Persian Gulf, leading all the way to the attack on Saudi oil fields in September, required some kind of a response by the Americans.
The US position has always been to deter the Iranians from fomenting instability in the Middle East, and from waging violent attacks against our collective interests. We’ve done none of that, and we failed in the aspect of deterrence.
Correcting that required a major shift in approach in terms of how we actually succeed at deterring the Iranians. There had to be some kind of a shocking operation against Iran that would make the regime recalculate and reconsider this campaign of violence that they’ve waged against us and our partners.
Alex Ward
You’re saying the US was overdue in sending a strong message?
Bilal Saab
Yes, in sending the strongest message: that the United States really means business in terms of the Iranians respecting certain red lines. The fact that the Trump administration took out someone who represents the face of Iran’s dangerous campaign in the region wasn’t only appropriate, it was well within the rules of the game.
The US not going after targets in Iran proper also lends further credence to the argument that this was fair game. So I’m not against the assassination, even though there are some legal questions about it.
But I do have a big worry: that taking Soleimani out should be part of a larger strategy that the administration is communicating across US government agencies and also to our partners in the region. The fact that it seems to be an isolated incident, though, is the problem.
Alex Ward
Iran has already threatened to exact “revenge” on the US. Doesn’t that undercut the deterrence argument? If deterrence was supposed to stop Iran from targeting Americans or US interests, the fact that they are likely to do so again makes it seem like deterrence didn’t work.
Bilal Saab
That’s a good question, but we have to be very clear and precise about what exactly we are deterring. I am of the opinion that we were not going to be able to deter the Iranians from engaging violently against us across the board. What we’re trying to deter here is really the more egregious acts, the more provocative acts by the Iranians against us and our partners.
We’re trying to stop another attack like the one on the Saudi oil fields or having Iran close the Strait of Hormuz, those larger-scale moves that in the past were unthinkable and because the US didn’t respond. The goal, then, is to shock the Iranians and force them to recalculate what targets they choose, the severity of it, the lethality.
But we’re just not in any position to deter acts of lower-intensity violence, so we’re going after the big stuff, basically.
Alex Ward
That seems risky.
Bilal Saab
I could be proven wrong. We’ll see what happens and how the Iranians respond to this. My guess is that, given the very unpredictable nature of the president’s approach toward Iran, especially after pulling off something dramatic like this, the Iranians are surely confused and shocked.
I think Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said it best recently when he said that “the game has changed.” By that I think he meant that whatever the Iranians entertained before, as far as attacking options, they can no longer go back to that menu and use it again.
I think it’s a good thing for Tehran to be perplexed and confused about what the president is capable of. They never expected him to wage such an attack against their top operative in the Middle East.
Now they’re wondering what could be next. So they’re going to be very, very careful, and they’re going to calibrate their revenge operations.
Alex Ward
But Iran was never likely to respond in a highly provocative way, was it? Because it’s worried about getting into a full-blown war with the US, which it would lose. So Iran was going to be conducting low-level attacks against Americans and others anyway, only now they have more incentive to do something a little more dramatic after Soleimani’s killing.
Bilal Saab
There are still some details to hammer out about how imminent the threat to Americans was or still may be. Putting that aside, what seemingly triggered Trump’s response was the killing of the American contractor in Iraq [on December 27] and the attempt at storming the US Embassy in Iraq [on December 31].
Those are American targets, and the president has been quite consistent on this: The moment our troops and personnel are at risk, or a single American dies, the US is going to lash out. We’re going to be very forceful with our response — and that’s exactly what happened.
If the Iranians are smart enough, they’ll once again go back to asymmetric warfare against our more vulnerable partners, and they’ll try to maintain plausible deniability while working through proxies. I don’t think that they would be stupid enough to really wage direct warfare against American troops in the region, given the large, conventional advantage of the US in that dynamic.
However, Iran has signaled that it’s targeting US military sites, so we’ll see if they’re going to actually follow through on those threats.
Alex Ward
Whether or not Soleimani deserved his fate, was the timing — the decision to kill him now —well advised? Tensions with the US and Iran have spiked dramatically since Trump withdrew America from the nuclear deal in 2018. One could argue there was a less provocative time to do this.
“We were already on a collision course driven by incoherent US policy. That’s the bottom line here. That’s the crux of this argument.”
Bilal Saab
Identify for me a good time where you can actually take out such a high-value person. There’s just never a “good” time. There’s always risk, but the administration calculated that the risk is worth the reward in this case. I think the administration wanted to nip this in the bud before the Iranians really do something stupid against our personnel, assets, and interests in the region.
Alex Ward
Was it worth this trouble and danger, though? Do the benefits really outweigh the costs, especially when the chance of a full-blown war rises, even if it’s still unlikely?
Bilal Saab
Once again, you have to weigh that against what the Iranians might have done had we not considered any response options. We were already on a pattern of escalation caused by the Iranians.
Now, you can go back to history and say, “We screwed up because we withdrew from the nuclear deal.” Okay, that’s fine. But at least over the past few months, we’ve seen a spate of attacks by the Iranians against us and against collective interests.
The fair assumption would have been that the Iranians would have continued along that path until they miscalculated or they overplayed their hand. I think they started doing that when [members of the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia] tried to storm the US Embassy in Baghdad.
So let’s imagine we didn’t conduct this operation against Soleimani, and then Iran still does something stupid, which forces us to respond swiftly and decisively, which also would increase the chances of a war just like what you just characterized. Would that really have been any different than this situation?
We were already on a collision course driven by incoherent US policy. That’s the bottom line here. That’s the crux of this argument. It’s not really about Soleimani. It’s not about the assassination. It’s the fact that we do not have a coherent policy toward the Iranians that actually has an achievable end goal. Whether we had killed Soleimani or not, Iran would have miscalculated or the US would have miscalculated.
“What worries the Iranians most is when the US is coherent and united with our allies, when we have a firm, consistent stance and we’re together. We’ve got none of those things right now.”
Alex Ward
There were reports that the Pentagon gave Trump other options to choose from, like bombing Iranian missile sites or ships, instead of killing Soleimani. Would those options have been more escalatory, in your mind? Especially since targeting missile sites likely would’ve meant striking inside Iranian territory, whereas Soleimani was killed while he was in Iraq?
Bilal Saab
Absolutely, I think we would be in a different ballgame. There are almost these unwritten rules of the game, that if we limit our confrontation to the region, then the chances of open-ended confrontation and all-out war wouldn’t be as high. But if we go after them directly, then this is a completely different situation.
Alex Ward
So how does this end? How do we get out of this cycle of violence?
Bilal Saab
I don’t think this ends. This is just a perpetual struggle between the two countries, and an especially tense one now with this administration. Since Iran doesn’t talk, I don’t think either side can deescalate at this point beyond just striking fear in the heart of the enemy. I’m of the opinion, and I could easily be wrong, that we have struck fear at this point, or at least forced Iran to reconsider what is permissible and what is not permissible.
Alex Ward
But, as you said, the US not having a coherent strategy against Iran could likely lead to more decades of violence.
Bilal Saab
Absolutely. In fact, you know what would deter the Iranians? A coherent policy, and we don’t have that.
What worries the Iranians most is when the US is coherent and united with our allies, when we have a firm, consistent stance and we’re together. We’ve got none of those things right now. There’s a huge gap between us and the Europeans. We also don’t sing from the same sheet of music with our own partners in the region.
Yet here we are taking out Iranian leaders without really contemplating what the next step is. How can we actually encourage Iranians, and not just force them, to come to the negotiating table? We clearly haven’t done that thinking yet.
Alex Ward
So it’s fair to say that the Soleimani killing may have had a good effect for now, but it’s obviously not enough on the whole to deal with Iran?
Bilal Saab
Yup, that’s it. That’s the ballgame.
Below is Saab’s response to the question I asked him following the Iranian strikes against the US in Iraq on Tuesday night.
Alex Ward
Did Iran’s attack change your thinking on whether killing Soleimani was a good idea or not?
Bilal Saab
Not at all. If anything, it shows the Soleimani strike worked. Iran’s attack wasn’t a major retaliation, and so they didn’t escalate the crisis. It’s pretty clear now that Trump did shock the Iranians with killing Soleimani, and we just saw that in real time.


vox--2020-01-08--Sean Hannity suggests bombing Iranian oil refineries to cause “major poverty for the people of Iran”

As the world waited to see how President Donald Trump would respond to the Iranian missile strikes on al-Asad airbase in Iraq , one of his favorite television hosts cheered on potential reprisals , including retaliation aimed at creating “ major poverty ” for Iranians .
“ There is a massive price to pay .
You don ’ t get to do what they did tonight .
They ’ re going to get hit hard , ” Fox News host Sean Hannity said Tuesday night .
“ The mullahs of Iran , well , they may want to watch and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tonight.
” After suggesting during the opening of the show that Iranian oil refineries may be at risk , Hannity then directly suggested bombing those refineries in an interview with Sen. Ted Cruz , with the intention of creating “ major poverty ” in the country , then “ maybe ” providing arms to Iranians to foment regime change .
“ They have three major refineries in Iran , senator .
Three .
I would imagine those refineries blew up one day , they got themselves a hell of a domestic problem , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in major poverty for the people of Iran .
And if they want regime change , that ’ s up to them , ” he said .
“ Maybe we could help them with arms and help them , you know — in some ways , but we are not sending our sons and daughters there.
” Cruz responded by pivoting to the Iran nuclear deal , saying , “ under Barack Obama , the policy [ regarding Iran ] was appeasement.
” “ We need to stand up to the Ayatollah , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reached out to Sen. Cruz ’ s office for comment .
Hannity , who Trump has called an “ amazing warrior ” for his support of the president and whose show the president watches regularly , was a prominent supporter of the Iraq War and has been one of the biggest boosters of military action with Iran .
After the Iranian military shot down an unmanned American drone in June 2019 , he said , “ the mullahs must see the writing on the wall .
...
If they do not end this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the mullahs of Iran will feel pain , I predict , like never before.
” And Hannity isn ’ t alone in suggesting that the American military target Iranian oil refineries to cripple Iran ’ s economy .
Sen. Lindsey Graham , another prominent Iran hawk , told Fox News last Friday , “ If I were the president , I would put on the table targets in Iran , not Iraq and Syria .
Economic targets that would crush the economy.
” Graham was also on Hannity on Tuesday night , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying , “ If you are watching television in Iran , I just got off the phone to the president : Your fate is in your own hands in terms of the regime ’ s economic viability .
You continue this crap , you ’ re going to wake up one day out of the oil business.
” In reaction to the latest developments , the Fox News masthead has been divided on the issue of potential war with Iran , with Hannity and Fox News contributor Pete Hesgeth cheering on military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Fox News contributor Geraldo Rivera opposing intervention .
But on Tuesday night , Hannity ’ s view was clear as he said , “ We are just finding out how stupid the leaders of Iran actually are .
...
They actually think they can attack America and get away with it .
I think they need to think again .
”

As the world waited to see how President Donald Trump would respond to the Iranian missile strikes on al-Asad airbase in Iraq, one of his favorite television hosts cheered on potential reprisals, including retaliation aimed at creating “major poverty” for Iranians.
“There is a massive price to pay. You don’t get to do what they did tonight. They’re going to get hit hard,” Fox News host Sean Hannity said Tuesday night. “The mullahs of Iran, well, they may want to watch and keep a watchful eye on the sky tonight.”
After suggesting during the opening of the show that Iranian oil refineries may be at risk, Hannity then directly suggested bombing those refineries in an interview with Sen. Ted Cruz, with the intention of creating “major poverty” in the country, then “maybe” providing arms to Iranians to foment regime change.
“They have three major refineries in Iran, senator. Three. I would imagine those refineries blew up one day, they got themselves a hell of a domestic problem, because that’s going to result in major poverty for the people of Iran. And if they want regime change, that’s up to them,” he said. “Maybe we could help them with arms and help them, you know — in some ways, but we are not sending our sons and daughters there.”
Cruz responded by pivoting to the Iran nuclear deal, saying, “under Barack Obama, the policy [regarding Iran] was appeasement.”
“We need to stand up to the Ayatollah,” Cruz added. I’ve reached out to Sen. Cruz’s office for comment.
Hannity, who Trump has called an “amazing warrior” for his support of the president and whose show the president watches regularly, was a prominent supporter of the Iraq War and has been one of the biggest boosters of military action with Iran. After the Iranian military shot down an unmanned American drone in June 2019, he said, “the mullahs must see the writing on the wall. ... If they do not end this hostility, if they do not stop, the mullahs of Iran will feel pain, I predict, like never before.”
And Hannity isn’t alone in suggesting that the American military target Iranian oil refineries to cripple Iran’s economy. Sen. Lindsey Graham, another prominent Iran hawk, told Fox News last Friday, “If I were the president, I would put on the table targets in Iran, not Iraq and Syria. Economic targets that would crush the economy.” Graham was also on Hannity on Tuesday night, where he addressed Iran’s government, saying, “If you are watching television in Iran, I just got off the phone to the president: Your fate is in your own hands in terms of the regime’s economic viability. You continue this crap, you’re going to wake up one day out of the oil business.”
In reaction to the latest developments, the Fox News masthead has been divided on the issue of potential war with Iran, with Hannity and Fox News contributor Pete Hesgeth cheering on military action but Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Fox News contributor Geraldo Rivera opposing intervention.
But on Tuesday night, Hannity’s view was clear as he said, “We are just finding out how stupid the leaders of Iran actually are. ... They actually think they can attack America and get away with it. I think they need to think again.”


vox--2020-01-08--Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are stepping down as senior royals

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle , the Duke and Duchess of Sussex , announced on Wednesday that they will “ step back from their roles as senior members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent.
” “ After many months of reflection and internal discussions , we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution , ” the couple wrote in their official announcement , posted on their joint Instagram and as a press release .
The couple ’ s decision comes after their six-week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November , when they took time off from royal duties .
A royal source told CNN in October that they were considering splitting time between the UK and the US .
According to BBC ’ s royal correspondent , Jonny Dymond , no member of the Royal Family was consulted before the couple issued their personal statement .
Harry and Meghan confirmed they will be spending time in both countries , adding that the geographic balance will help them raise their son Archie “ with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ their ] family with the space to focus on the next chapter , including the launch of our new charitable entity.
” The announcement shouldn ’ t be surprising , given the intense scrutiny Meghan ’ s personal and public life has faced since she started dating Harry in 2016 .
Meghan has constantly been a subject of the British tabloids , and in October , the couple sued the owners of the Sun and Daily Mirror — two of the biggest UK publishers — over alleged phone hacking .
The Duke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first high-profile royals to retreat from their roles .
In November , Prince Andrew , Queen Elizabeth ’ s second son , announced he would “ step back from public duties for the foreseeable future , ” after a disastrous BBC interview that addressed his friendship with the Jeffrey Epstein , who was accused of sexually abusing dozens of underage girls before his death in August .
Andrew ’ s leave , however , seemed to be an attempt at mitigating the backlash he received .
Harry and Meghan ’ s decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be an independent choice .
Buckingham Palace released a statement , writing that discussions with the couple were at an early stage : “ We understand their desire to take a different approach , but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.
” Sign up for The Goods ’ newsletter .
Twice a week , we ’ ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy it , and why it matters .

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, announced on January 18 that they will surrender their “royal highness” titles and repay the funds spent on renovating their home near Windsor Castle.
The announcement comes 10 days after the couple announced they will step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family and work to become financially independent.
“The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are grateful to Her Majesty and the Royal Family for their ongoing support as they embark on the next chapter of their lives,” reads the press statement from Buckingham Palace.
The couple’s decision comes after their six-week break of “family time” in November, when they took time off from royal duties. A royal source told CNN in October that they were considering splitting time between the UK and the US. According to BBC’s royal correspondent, Jonny Dymond, no member of the royal family was consulted before the couple issued their first statement.
On January 13, the royal family convened for a family summit to discuss the Sussexes’ plans. The queen ultimately expressed her support for Harry and Meghan. On January 18, following the announcement that they would not retain their “royal highness” titles, the queen said in a statement, “I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my grandson and his family. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family.”
Harry and Meghan confirmed they will be spending time in both countries, adding that the geographic balance will help them raise their son “with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing [their] family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.”
The announcement shouldn’t be surprising, given the intense scrutiny Meghan’s personal and public life has faced since she started dating Harry in 2016. Meghan has constantly been a subject of the British tabloids, and in October, the couple sued the owners of the Sun and Daily Mirror — two of the biggest UK publishers — over alleged phone hacking.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex aren’t the first high-profile royals to retreat from their roles. In November, Prince Andrew, Queen Elizabeth’s second son, announced he would “step back from public duties for the foreseeable future,” after a disastrous BBC interview that addressed his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, who was accused of sexually abusing dozens of underage girls before his death in August. Andrew’s leave, however, seemed to be an attempt to mitigate the backlash he received.
Harry and Meghan’s loss of titles was expected, according to the Washington Post. Princess Diana and Sarah, the Duchess of York and former wife of Prince Andrew, lost their HRH titles when they divorced their royal husbands. It seems that Buckingham Palace has accepted the couple’s independent decision, with the queen issuing a formal statement of support: “I recognize the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life.”
Sign up for The Goods’ newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.