Trump Approves Strikes on Iran, but Then Abruptly Pulls Back

[Norm dePlume]

Trump Approves Strikes on Iran, but Then Abruptly Pulls Back

WASHINGTON — President Trump approved military strikes against Iran in retaliation for downing an American surveillance drone, but pulled back from launching them on Thursday night after a day of escalating tensions.

As late as 7 p.m., military and diplomatic officials were expecting a strike, after intense discussions and debate at the White House among the president’s top national security officials and congressional leaders, according to multiple senior administration officials involved in or briefed on the deliberations.

Officials said the president had initially approved attacks on a handful of Iranian targets, like radar and missile batteries.

The operation was underway in its early stages when it was called off, a senior administration official said. Planes were in the air and ships were in position, but no missiles had been fired when word came to stand down, the official said.

The White House will deny this, of course.

[Newman]

Same story, no pay wall, but the headline says about all there is to it.

Trump orders limited strike on Iran but then calls it off for unknown reasons

President Trump on Thursday ordered the U.S. military to conduct a limited strike against Iran to retaliate for the downing of a Navy surveillance drone in the Persian Gulf region, but he then called off the operation in the evening for unknown reasons. The president's change of course avoided, for now, what would have been the most significant escalation of hostilities between Washington and Tehran in decades.

There was every indication the U.S. was about to launch a limited strike against Iranian surface-to-air missile sites on Thursday evening, but the military stood down at the 11th hour for still-unexplained reasons. More than one source confirmed this to CBS News, including two sources within the Trump administration who were familiar with the president's decision. The sources said the plan was already underway when it was called off.

The New York Times first reported that Mr. Trump approved the strike and then pulled back before it was carried out.

This CBS account includes an essay to conclude:

The discussion on Thursday within the Trump administration on whether to take retaliatory military action represents the latest flash-point in nearly 40 years of geopolitical enmity between both countries that began after the U.S.-allied monarchy was overthrown during the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

The strained relationship entered a détente of sorts under the Obama administration, which allied with European countries to broker a landmark deal with Iran to reduce its medium-enriched uranium stockpile in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions, but it has worsened since Mr. Trump took office.

Although America's European allies are still abiding by it, Mr. Trump withdrew the U.S. from the agreement, dubbed the "Iran nuclear deal," in May 2018, deriding it as a one-sided deal. He has also imposed crippling sanctions on Iran.

Mounting tension in recent weeks has raised fears that a full-blown conflict could ensue between the countries as hardliners in both Tehran and Washington escalate their rhetoric.

Earlier in the month, the Trump administration accused the Iranian government of attacking two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, a vital waterway near the Arabian Peninsula for international oil shipments. Officials said U.S. intelligence suggested the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — an elite military unit which answers directly to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — was behind the attacks.

I assume this was an official, approved "leak" to the NYT, denial or not. The story certainly isn't finished yet.

[Tom Servo]

His BFF told him to knock it off.

[Newman]

His BFF told him to knock it off.

I should turn on CNN to see if that's true.

[Michele]

Same story, no pay wall, but the headline says about all there is to it.

Trump orders limited strike on Iran but then calls it off for unknown reasons
This CBS account includes an essay to conclude:


I assume this was an official, approved "leak" to the NYT, denial or not. The story certainly isn't finished yet.

Now, why would you not excitedly jump on the chance to run with this headline from the NYT?

[Billy Jingo]

With all the adults gone, things get a bit more dangerous.

Mattis is sorely missed.

[Lady Marva]

Trump ordered attack on Iran for downing drone, then called it off, citing casualties

Little bit more...…..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/trump-ordered-attack-on-iran-for-downing-drone-then-called-it-off/2019/06/21/24f4994e-93f3-11e9-aadb-74e6b2b46f6a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cf3f5f159ea7

DUBAI — President Trump ordered an attack on Iran on Thursday in retaliation for the downing of a surveillance drone in the Strait of Hormuz but called the operation off just before it was due to occur because it would have caused extensive casualties, he said Friday.
In a series of morning tweets, Trump said he called off strikes on three Iranian sites minutes before they were to be launched because he was informed of the likely loss of life among Iranians.

“We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die,” Trump tweeted. “150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it.”
Such a death toll was “not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone,” Trump wrote, adding: “I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more added last night. Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against the WORLD!”

Trump’s Friday morning tweets appeared to gloss over the fact that he was the one, as commander in chief, who had ordered the retaliation against Iran in the first place.
Iran said Friday the United States had “no justification” for a retaliatory strike and vowed to respond “firmly” to any U.S. military action.
Continued with video

[Norm dePlume]

Now, why would you not excitedly jump on the chance to run with this headline from the NYT?

It's almost as if teetering on the brink of open warfare is worth discussing or something.

[Norm dePlume]

I was wrong. They didn't deny it.

I have to wonder if he ordered the strike and didn't ask about the expected casualties until after the planes were in the air?

[Lanie]

I was wrong. They didn't deny it.

I have to wonder if he ordered the strike and didn't ask about the expected casualties until after the planes were in the air?

If you're targeting the military areas, you might not expect a lot of civilians to be near by. Again, he is new to this. I'm glad he cares if he kill a lot of civilians.

[Gingersnap]

In real life, (not politics) it's pretty common to start down one road and then reverse course abruptly before any damage is done.

We call this "smart".

I assume the President (not just this one) has about 40 advisers for anything involving military strikes and if they are like their business/science peers, they have 56 wildly varying views among themselves.

Trump evidently reevaluated their advice.

This is fine with me.

[Norm dePlume]

If you're targeting the military areas, you might not expect a lot of civilians to be near by. Again, he is new to this. I'm glad he cares if he kill a lot of civilians.

Nobody said anything about civilians. The 150 people is a military estimate of military casualties. They have an estimate of how many personnel are likely to be in a command and control facility they're about to blow up.

[Norm dePlume]

It's good that he's considering what's proportionate. Having escalated things to this point, at least we're finally thinking about avoiding escalation. The whiplash decision reversal is unnerving. And I'm concerned that he doesn't appear to have been offered any options that weren't disproportionate. Is the choice really between this strike, which was disproportionate, or nothing?

[Newman]

It's good that he's considering what's proportionate. Having escalated things to this point, at least we're finally thinking about avoiding escalation. The whiplash decision reversal is unnerving. And I'm concerned that he doesn't appear to have been offered any options that weren't disproportionate. Is the choice really between this strike, which was disproportionate, or nothing?

True, if true.

I don't presume we know much of anything about the whole story. For example, we are at a significant moment in trade negotiations with China, who is, I think, Iran's biggest oil customer. We could present this pull-back to the Chinese as a consideration of their interests. Also, I don't presume Trump's remarks about a rogue button-pusher in Iran, that this attack was a mistake, was serendipitous. (But as Marlon Brando warned somebody in The Godfather, that he would avenge any threat to his son's safety, even a lightning strike, I think we do have to exact a price from Iran for this act.) CNN may pretend Trump is a wuss for aborting the mission—Hillary would never back away from an opportunity to use military force!—I don't think Iran draws the same lesson from this close encounter.

I don't know the contents of Trump and Putin's pillow talk; it may include some advice from the Donald to the Mullahs.

One thing I'm very happy for is our new energy independence. This mess has caused hardly a ripple in our price of oil, unlike in the past, and that gives the president (any president) a friggin enormous amount of bargaining power.

We'll probably pay more because of the Philadelphia fire than for Iran's pyrotechnics.

[Norm dePlume]

True, if true.

Today's tautology is the tautology of the day.