Pentagon Rules Out Striking Iranian Cultural Sites, Contradicting Trump - The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper sought to douse an international outcry on Monday by ruling out military attacks on cultural sites in Iran if the conflict with Tehran escalates further, despite President Trump’s threat to destroy some of the country’s treasured icons.

Mr. Esper acknowledged that striking cultural sites with no military value would be a war crime, putting him at odds with the president, who insisted such places would be legitimate targets. Mr. Trump’s threats generated condemnation at home and abroad while deeply discomfiting American military leaders who have made a career of upholding the laws of war.

“We will follow the laws of armed conflict,” Mr. Esper said at a news briefing at the Pentagon when asked if cultural sites would be targeted as the president had suggested over the weekend. When a reporter asked if that meant “no” because the laws of war prohibit targeting cultural sites, Mr. Esper agreed. “That’s the laws of armed conflict.”

The furor was a classic controversy of Mr. Trump’s creation, the apparent result of an impulsive threat and his refusal to back down in the face of criticism. When Mr. Trump declared on Saturday that the United States had identified 52 potential targets in Iran if it retaliates for the American drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, none of those targets qualified as cultural sites, according to an administration official who asked not to be identified correcting the president.

Nonetheless, when Mr. Trump casually said on Twitter that they included sites “very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture,” the resulting uproar only got his back up. Rather than simply say that cultural sites were not actually being targeted, the official said, he decided to double down the next day with reporters flying with him on Air Force One, scoffing at the idea that Iran could “kill our people” while “we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site,” saying, “It doesn’t work that way.”

The comments drew protests from Iran and other American adversaries who said they showed that Mr. Trump is the aggressor — and not just against Iran’s government but against its people, its history and its very nationhood. Even some of America’s international partners weighed in, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain breaking with Mr. Trump by issuing a statement through an aide warning against targeting antiquities.

Military leaders were left in the awkward position of trying to reaffirm their commitment to generations of war-fighting rules without angering a volatile commander in chief by contradicting him. Mr. Trump’s remarks unsettled even some of his allies, who considered them an unnecessary distraction at a time when the president should be focusing attention on Iran’s misdeeds rather than promising some of his own.

Listen to ‘The Daily’: Why Iran Is in Mourning

“Knowing General Suleimani was out there made me feel safer,” said a student about the commander killed in an American drone strike. “He was like a security umbrella above our country.”

transcript

0:00/26:59

-26:59

transcript

Listen to ‘The Daily’: Why Iran Is in Mourning

Hosted by Michael Barbaro; produced by Austin Mitchell and Jonathan Wolfe; with help from Neena Pathak and Sydney Harper; and edited by Lisa Chow, Paige Cowett and Dave Shaw

“Knowing General Suleimani was out there made me feel safer,” said a student about the commander killed in an American drone strike. “He was like a security umbrella above our country.”

michael barbaro

From The New York Times, I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.”

Today: In the streets of Tehran, Iranians are mourning the loss of General Qassim Suleimani. My colleague Farnaz Fassihi on what they feel they’ve lost.

It’s Tuesday, January 7.

archived recording

[CHANTING]

farnaz fassihi

Monday morning was the start of the official state funeral for General Qassim Suleimani.

archived recording

[SINGING]

farnaz fassihi

By 8:00 a.m., there were millions of people out in downtown Tehran. He was being celebrated as a national hero, but also as a religious martyr and a saint.

archived recording

[SINGING AND DRUMMING]

farnaz fassihi

There were families. There were men, women, children. They had the symbolic Shia ritual symbols out — feathers, swords, drums, music, eulogies, songs.

archived recording

[CHANTING]

farnaz fassihi

And the crowd also had a very anti-American and defiant mood. People were sad, but they were also very angry, and we heard a lot of “revenge, revenge,” and “no more negotiations with the U.S., it’s time for battle,” chanted by the crowd.

archived recording (ayatollah ali khamenei)

[SPEAKING]

farnaz fassihi

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, recited the Muslim prayer of the dead on General Suleimani’s coffin.

archived recording (ayatollah ali khamenei)

[SPEAKING]

farnaz fassihi

In the middle of the prayer, several times he paused and openly cried.

archived recording (ayatollah ali khamenei)

[SPEAKING] [CROWD MOANING]

farnaz fassihi

And the crowd also wept very loudly with him. As a reporter who’s covered Iran for over 25 years, what struck me was that the people who had attended were not just supporters of the regime, but a lot of people who were generally very critical of the regime.

michael barbaro

Hmm.

farnaz fassihi

To be clear, there are plenty of Iranians who did not love or respect General Suleimani. But there were activists, there were opposition figures who had been jailed by the regime who attended. And when I asked them, why are you there? Why are you going? The response was, General Suleimani protected our national security. He transcended politics. He was a national hero. And I was talking to some young people who had attended his funeral, and I spoke to a 22-year-old young man, a university student, and I asked him, why are you at the funeral? And he said, knowing General Suleimani was out there made me feel safer. He was like a security umbrella above our country. And that’s a sentiment that I heard over and over.

michael barbaro

You know, what you’re describing feels like the kind of unified national outpouring that is reserved for a small handful of figures in any country, right? I mean, a beloved president, a civil rights leader like Martin Luther King in the United States, not for what our colleagues have described as a general who specializes in covert operations in Iran.

farnaz fassihi

I think it’s difficult for most people in the United States and outside of Iran, and perhaps the region, to grasp the unique place and role that General Suleimani played in Iran and in regional politics. He was singlehandedly the most revered and influential character in Iran.

michael barbaro

So how did Suleimani cultivate that role? How did he make Iranians feel that way? Where does that story start?

farnaz fassihi

In many ways, General Suleimani’s story begins with the story of Iran’s revolution in 1979.

[music]

farnaz fassihi

He was a young man working construction jobs in the small city of Kerman in the southwest, from a low-income family.

michael barbaro

Mm-hmm.

farnaz fassihi

His education was high school diploma level, and he got swept up in the revolution, in the promise of Islam becoming the foundation of a government, and of promises to empower the oppressed and low-income class in Iran, which had been neglected and sidelined under the pro-Western monarchy of the shah. So General Suleimani gets a job at the local water plant and volunteers for the local chapter of the Revolutionary Guards, and quickly rises up and shows a lot of promise as a military man. When the war with Iraq happened in the 1980s, he was a commander for eight years. And after the war ended, he was named the commander of the Quds Forces. And that was really the beginning of the Quds Forces, and the Islamic Republic’s ambition to create a paramilitary in the region, and to kind of export the idea of an Islamic revolution of Shia dominance outside of the borders of Iran.

michael barbaro

And why does Iran, and someone like Suleimani, want to export this revolution?

farnaz fassihi

The Islamic Republic theocracy was the first time that a Shia government had come to power in the Middle East. The Islamic faith is divided along Sunnis and Shias, and the division and rivalry go back all the way to the early days of Islam and the succession of Prophet Muhammad. And Shias have always been a minority in the faith. With Saudi Arabia sort of as the custodian of the Sunni faith, Iran has, for centuries, wanted to establish itself as the protector of the minority Shias. And the theocracy of the Islamic Republic gave them the foundation and the structure to do that. And as soon as they had established their government in power in the country, they started looking externally. And General Suleimani was pivotal in expanding the ambitions of Iran’s military and political apparatus in the Middle East.

michael barbaro

And how exactly does he do that?

farnaz fassihi

So General Suleimani was instrumental in elevating Iran’s strategy in the region through the proxy militia groups that it had created. And he started in Lebanon, where Iran had already created two Shia militia groups, Amal al-Islami and Hezbollah, and he helped them in their fight with Israeli soldiers that were occupying Lebanon, and later on in the battles that Hezbollah and Lebanon fought. General Suleimani also becomes very involved with Palestinian militant groups — Hamas, Islamic Jihad — who also see an alliance between their ideologies and Islamic Republic of Iran.

michael barbaro

And when you say that Suleimani becomes involved in these groups, what does that actually mean? What is he doing?

farnaz fassihi

He helps them come up with battlefield plans, and he dispatches his underlings to go and train and fund and form these groups, providing them with weapons, providing them with money, and providing them with strategy. And he gains this reputation of being the shadow commander, the man who’s everywhere but nowhere. If General Suleimani is present on the ground, then Iran is present.

michael barbaro

So under Suleimani, Iran is making itself felt across the Middle East through these relationships to these militias. Does that strategy succeed?

farnaz fassihi

Iran’s strategy succeeds, but it’s limited to the shores of the Mediterranean with Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. But that changes in 2003 with the United States invasion of Iraq.

[music]

michael barbaro

We’ll be right back.

archived recording

U.S. warships and planes launched the opening salvo of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The attack came in waves —

michael barbaro

So Farnaz, how exactly did the U.S. invasion of Iraq provide an opportunity for Suleimani and for this strategy that he’s pursuing for Iran?

farnaz fassihi

Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the country was ruled by Saddam Hussein and Sunnis, and Shias who were aligned to Iran were marginalized. When the United States toppled Saddam Hussein, Shias rose to power, and many of these Shia leaders and political and religious figures had very close ties to Iran. And Iran really seized that opportunity. It used these contacts and networks and relationships to gain influence and penetrate Iraqi society. And General Suleimani once again becomes the pivotal character in helping realize this strategy and this aspiration.

michael barbaro

So an unintended consequence of America invading Iraq is that it ends up empowering Iran.

farnaz fassihi

When I was living and working in Iraq in those early days after the invasion, most of the Sunni Iraqis that we would meet and interview would say that the U.S. invasion delivered Iraq on a golden platter to Iran.

michael barbaro

Wow. So what does Suleimani do with this opening that he sees in Iraq?

farnaz fassihi

General Suleimani uses the opening to further expand Iran’s influence in Iraq and in the region. He helps create Shia militia. He recruits allies, a network of politicians, religious men and militant groups who were loyal to Iran’s ambitions in Iraq. The Shia militia that he helped create were also responsible for attacks on U.S. soldiers, for the killing of U.S. soldiers, and for civilian deaths.

When the Civil War started in Syria in 2011, Iran vowed to keep President Bashar al-Assad in power. Mr. Assad and his constituents are an offshoot of Shia Islam, and religiously and politically aligned with Iran. This is where Iraq comes in. Because of the relationships and networks and influence that General Suleimani had in Iraq, he was able to use Iraq by land and by air to funnel support for Syria’s war. Weapons, missiles, even soldiers that were trained in Iran were shipped to Syria by way of Iraq.

michael barbaro

So Suleimani’s strategy in Iraq — it doesn’t just fend off the Americans who have invaded there. It means that Iran and Suleimani could use Iraq to assist allies like Assad in Syria and in all these other battles throughout the region.

farnaz fassihi

Exactly. Iraq becomes a geographic extension of Iran and its interests in the region. And by the time ISIS takes over parts of Syria in Idlib and parts of Iraq in Mosul, the Iraqi government and even the Americans were at wit’s end on what to do to battle this growing threat of ISIS.

michael barbaro

So what does the rise of ISIS mean for Iran, and what does that mean for Iranian influence and for Suleimani’s role?

farnaz fassihi

The rise of ISIS was a threat to Iran. It was an existential threat to the Shia government of Iran, because ISIS represented the most extreme version of Sunni faith. And again, General Suleimani mobilizes. He goes to Iraq and he repeats a true and proven formula once again by recruiting volunteers, the instrumental ground force in helping the United States and Iraq’s army to battle ISIS. Therefore, Mr. Suleimani, although he’s seen as a foe of the United States, in the battle of ISIS actually becomes a default ally. For General Suleimani, the rise of ISIS was a turning point. He went from being a commander in the shadows, a mystery figure, to being a household name.

michael barbaro

Hmm. And why is he suddenly a public figure because of ISIS?

farnaz fassihi

Because Iran wanted to counter ISIS’s propaganda machinery.

archived recording 1

ISIS is using its cash and media-savvy Western militants to recruit and radicalize.

archived recording 2

The branded content. They’re mixing graphics, moving images, music, chants, all the —

archived recording 3

— cataloging and posting in near real time their war crimes.

farnaz fassihi

They utilize social media and Twitter and Facebook to recruit, to spread their propaganda to target their messaging.

archived recording

And this is a “mujatweet,” a short, promotional video which shows a softer side of jihad. Here, a Belgian hands out ice cream to excited Syrian children.

farnaz fassihi

And they create a personality around their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the same way that Al Qaeda had created a personality around Bin Laden. So in response to ISIS’s very successful propaganda campaign, Iran decides to turn General Suleimani into the public face of the so-called resistance, and somebody that Shias could love and emulate and respect.

archived recording

Enter Qassim Suleimani.

Here he is, celebrating gun in hand.

farnaz fassihi

His pictures began appearing in public in battlegrounds, videos of him visiting soldiers unannounced.

archived recording

He’s been up and down the country in the North, in the South, in the capital, checking up on the defenses, mobilizing the Shia militias, making sure that the Iraqi states are able to confront the threat from ISIS.

farnaz fassihi

Videos of him reciting poetry, saying that he wants to become a martyr, the highest honor in Islam, and join his friends.

archived recording

General Suleimani is increasingly being elevated and recognized as a key player on the world stage as Iranian influence in the region grows.

farnaz fassihi

So by 2014, Mr. Suleimani is so well-known that his pictures are being printed on T-shirts, and his posters are sold in shops in Damascus and Beirut and Tehran.

michael barbaro

Wow.

farnaz fassihi

And that summer, his mother passed away, and the funeral of his mother in Tehran became the who’s who event of every militant group in the Middle East. From the head of Hamas, to Islamic Jihad, to senior members of Hezbollah, all showed up to pay respects to the general that they saw as the patron of their cause and movement.

michael barbaro

Hmm. So this is vivid evidence that he is very much the source of power in the Middle East — that all these groups owe him. They’re literally showing up at his door.

farnaz fassihi

It was like watching a king hold court. And that was really the first public glimpse that we got of his status regionally, and what he means to these groups.

michael barbaro

So at this point in 2014, how is Suleimani viewed by the U.S.? I’m struck that all of these figures and groups that you’re describing as turning out to pay respects to Suleimani’s mother at this funeral, they are all pretty much mortal foes of the U.S.

farnaz fassihi

So the U.S. was watching him, but not really taking action. And that was really in line with the previous administration’s policies of engagement with Iran, and not escalating confrontation. That changed with the election of Donald Trump as president.

michael barbaro

Right, and the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal that President Trump ordered.

farnaz fassihi

Yes. Since the withdrawal of the Iran nuclear deal by the U.S., Iran and the U.S. have been on a collision path, increasingly taking provocative actions and policies toward one another.

archived recording

The past 48 hours saw a dangerous escalation in the feud between Washington and Tehran.

farnaz fassihi

Culminating these past few weeks of violence in Iraq —

archived recording 1

An American contractor was killed on an Iraqi base.

archived recording (mark esper)

The Department of Defense took offensive actions by launching F-15 Strike Eagles against five targets.

archived recording

Protesters stormed the American Embassy, and the U.S. says Iran is responsible.

farnaz fassihi

— that ultimately led to the decision by President Trump to assassinate General Suleimani.

michael barbaro

Right. Because in the minds of U.S. officials, Suleimani is very much responsible for those actions.

farnaz fassihi

Exactly.

michael barbaro

And Farnaz, how much do you think that the very public role that Suleimani occupied, and that Iran created for him and wanted for him — how much do you think that that played a role in the Trump administration’s decision to take him out, the understanding of what it was he represented to Iran?

farnaz fassihi

I think the Trump administration may have not known what he represented to Iran.

michael barbaro

Hmm.

farnaz fassihi

I think that they miscalculated the level of admiration, perhaps, or nationalistic sentiment that we’ve seen pouring out of Iran. I think the White House probably thought that it was taking out a military commander, that it may not be very popular with ordinary Iranians, that there’s been a lot of discontent in November against the government, and maybe Iranians would support this decision. For sure, we have voices in Iran, outside and inside Iran, among Iranians, who think that taking Mr. Suleimani out is justified, and they didn’t like him, but what we’ve seen is that the U.S. has effectively turned General Suleimani into a martyr.

michael barbaro

So this response that we saw at the funeral on Monday — are you saying that the United States may not have expected this? Because it sounds like the U.S. understood one aspect of Suleimani’s role in Iran, as the leader of this military strategy, but perhaps they didn’t understand something that’s equally as important, which is what he meant in the hearts of Iranians.

farnaz fassihi

I think that’s absolutely right. And I think, you know, we have to remember Iran has been an island of stability in a region ablaze with terrorism and car bombs and beheadings and kidnappings and women being sold by ISIS. And Iranians have, like, watched the whole region unravel around them — refugees and displacement — for the past 20 years. And by and large, they credit General Suleimani for that. They say that they trusted him and respected him for protecting Iran, for keeping Iran safe. And I think the outpouring of emotion we see is related to that sentiment.

michael barbaro

Help me understand this idea, because the strategy that you have described over the past decade of violence and provocation that Suleimani oversaw and he came to personify, it doesn’t feel protective. Why did it feel that way to Iranians in a way that the U.S. might not have understood?

farnaz fassihi

You know, Michael, that’s a really good question, and it’s one that I’ve struggled to understand myself. This is a man who was responsible for a lot of violence and a lot of mayhem in the region, and a lot of activity that most Iranians may not agree with, that do not like. But because they felt that it gave them a buffer between their day-to-day lives inside Iran and the instability and violence happening all around the Middle East, they came to respect him and view him as a protector.

[music]

michael barbaro

What does Suleimani’s meaning to people in Iran — what does that mean for the response we should expect from the government there?

farnaz fassihi

The public momentum is building, and pressure is building, on Iran’s leadership to take action. At the funeral this morning, millions of people were out.

archived recording

[CHANTING]

farnaz fassihi

They were carrying the red flag of Shia Islam, which is a call to battle. They were chanting, “No to negotiations, no to a deal, only war with the United States.”

archived recording

[CHANTING]

farnaz fassihi

And the combination of the public’s defiant mood and calls for revenge, and the rhetoric we’re seeing from Iranian officials, increases the possibility that in the next few days or next few weeks, Iran will respond and retaliate. How it will do it, what it will do, we don’t know.

michael barbaro

Farnaz, thank you very much.

farnaz fassihi

Thank you so much for having me, Michael.

michael barbaro

The Times reports that Iran’s supreme leader has told advisors that the retaliation against the United States for General Suleimani’s death should be carried out openly by Iran’s military, not through proxies or militias. Such a direct reprisal would be a major departure from Iranian tradition, and highlights the desire by the supreme leader to honor Suleimani’s status and satisfy the mourners who have flooded the streets of Tehran.

We’ll be right back.

Here’s what else you need to know today. In a surprise statement on Monday, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, said he is willing to testify at President Trump’s impeachment trial if he is subpoenaed by the Senate. The announcement puts new pressure on Senate Republicans to call witnesses at the trial, something they have so far resisted doing. Bolton was blocked by the White House from testifying before House impeachment investigators, but is considered a vital witness in the case, because he has direct knowledge of Trump’s actions and conversations regarding Ukraine. And in Los Angeles on Monday, prosecutors charged Harvey Weinstein with sex crimes just hours after prosecutors in New York began a trial against Weinstein on similar charges. The allegations in Los Angeles are from two women who allege that Weinstein sexually assaulted them in hotel rooms in 2013. The latest charges mean that even if Weinstein is acquitted in New York, he will face a second trial in California.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.

“We’re not at war with the culture of the Iranian people,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of the president’s staunchest supporters in Congress, said on Monday. “We’re in a conflict with the theology, the ayatollah and his way of doing business.”

Mr. Graham, a retired military lawyer in the Air Force Reserve, said he delivered that message to Mr. Trump in a telephone call on Monday. “I think the president saying ‘we will hit you hard’ is the right message,” he said. “Cultural sites is not hitting them hard; it’s creating more problems. We’re trying to show solidarity with the Iranian people.”

Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Mr. Trump’s threats would only encourage despots of the world to target antiquities themselves.

“America is better than that, and President Trump is flat-out wrong to threaten attacks on historic places of cultural heritage,” said Mr. Reed, a former platoon leader in the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division. “Destroying some of these culturally significant Iranian sites wouldn’t be seen as just an attack against the regime in Tehran, it could be construed as an attack on history and humanity.”

Iran, home to one of the world’s most storied ancient civilizations, has 22 cultural sites designated on the World Heritage List by UNESCO, the United Nations cultural organization, including the ruins of Persepolis, the capital of the Achaemenid Empire later conquered by Alexander the Great. Others include Tchogha Zanbil, the remnants of the holy city of the Kingdom of Elam, and a series of Persian gardens that have their roots in the times of Cyrus the Great.

The United States is a signatory to a 1954 international agreement to protect cultural property in armed conflict and has been a leader in condemning rogue nations and groups that destroy antiquities, including the Islamic State’s destruction of sites in Mosul, Iraq, and Palmyra, Syria, and the Taliban’s demolition of the famed Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001.

Experts said that what Mr. Trump described would likewise violate international law. “We and others accused ISIS of war crimes when they did this,” said Jeh C. Johnson, a former secretary of homeland security under President Barack Obama who previously served as the top lawyer at the Pentagon. “Certainly, in aggravated circumstances, it should be considered a war crime.”

Mr. Johnson and others said there could be situations that are murkier, if the actual cultural value was less clear or it was being used as a military facility. Still, Mr. Johnson said, “my guess is his national security lawyers did not vet that tweet.”

Indeed, the president’s advisers ever since have sought to deny that he was actually making a threat even though his initial tweet said the sites — including those of cultural importance — “WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD” if Iran responded to General Suleimani’s killing.

“President Trump didn’t say he’d go after a cultural site,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted the next day on Fox News. “Read what he said very closely.”

But just hours later, Mr. Trump made very clear that he thought cultural sites were in fact legitimate targets. “They’re allowed to kill our people,” he told the reporters on Air Force One as he flew back to Washington from his winter holiday in Florida. “They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”

By Monday, the White House was again denying that Mr. Trump actually made a threat. “He didn’t say he’s targeting cultural sites,” Kellyanne Conway, the president’s counselor, told reporters. “He said that he was openly asking the question why in the world they’re allowed to maim people, put out roadside bombs, kill our people, torture our people.”

Peter Baker reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. Helene Cooper and Emily Cochrane contributed reporting from Washington.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Culture - Latest - Google News
January 07, 2020 at 08:19AM
https://ift.tt/39PrjX9

Pentagon Rules Out Striking Iranian Cultural Sites, Contradicting Trump - The New York Times
Culture - Latest - Google News
https://ift.tt/35WC9rk
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Bagikan Berita Ini