The president of the USA He said one day after the attack in Baghdad that he ended the life of the Quds Force commander – the Guardians of the Iranian Revolution – that his decision is "to stop a war and not to start it." And he added that "Iran never lost a negotiation." What it does is extend to the political leaders of the war – the Iranian ayatollahs – a hand for peace negotiations. It is a great initiative.
Before the death of Qasem Soleimani and that of Abu Mahdi al Mohandes, vice president of Popular Crowd, the Shiite militias of Iraq, the Ayatollahs cry out for retaliation. Immediately, yesterday's attack – a missile in the area of the American embassy in Baghdad and the launch of missiles at a nearby American military base – are emotional reactions. In the Muslim world retaliation has traditionally been a kind of reparation, of restoration of balance, a kind of moral imperative. Given this, Donald Trump must be ready to face a terrorist attack in US territory. In the wars of the 21st century the virtual media front is even more important than the real one and an action anywhere else has no impact on global public opinion.
Trump's political decision to carry out this military act is not an isolated event or a cyclical reaction. And it is also a proportional answer. It is a process and it is necessary to establish the sequence of that process to understand the script of this war. It takes perspective.
The weapon used is a Hellfire air-to-ground missile fired from a Predator drone against the head of the Quds Force, a military arm of the Iranian Ayatollah political headquarters in Iraq. Your employment is a political decision. The debate about proportionality in the use of force has a place in today's war. It is proportionality precisely what has led to the drone weapon.RELATED
The political decision of its use is not a reaction against the Popular Crowd attack on the US embassy. in Baghdad on December 31 (where they managed to break into and burn) in retaliation to the US attack against Iraqi militias on the 29th that about twenty Shiite militiamen were killed after the attack the day before an American base in which an American contractor died . A war is not a string of meaningless deaths.
Four months ago, in August 2019, USA. he killed Hamza Bin Laden, son of Osama, the inubicable terrorist leader of Al Qaeda who died years ago in Pakistan. And just two months ago, in October, USA. He also selectively eliminated Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, head of the Islamic State – called Daesh by the Europeans – who committed atrocities in the eyes of the entire world with the delusional plan to restore the Islamic Caliphate even in Europe itself.
Trump is not reacting, then. He is leading the war with the political decision to selectively use the weapon of the drones against the leaders of the global terror military organizations. They are not isolated facts. It is a military action that responds to a global strategy.
Nor are recent political events in South America isolated from the global conflict. Iran's presence in South America – especially the five visits of former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hugo Chávez and in Caracas until 2011 – prove that South America is seen as a beachhead in the global conflict and its natural resources as the spoils. It has been even since the distant days of the attack against the Israeli association AMIA in Buenos Aires in 1994, whose investigation has again been denied by the new Argentine president, stating that there is no evidence of the relationship between that fact and the murder of the Prosecutor investigating him.
The “Arab Spring” in South America in Santiago, in Quito, in Bogotá, in La Paz is not an isolated event from the global conflict. The Havana, Caracas, Sao Paulo Forum, Buenos Aires axis triggered the discomfort incubated by the slowdown in growth because it still believes that it can establish its own caliphate in this part of the world. And the heroic focus of the resistance is today in Bolivia, at the very center of the board.