Most useful thread you will read correcting US media’s misinformation mess


Unfortunately, we have to get real news from foreign sources since our media is so corrupt. Brit Hume pointed to this thread this morning. Trust me, it’s great, and it won’t take long to read.

Kuwaiti Daily columnist, Hussain Abdul-Hussain, took to Twitter to straighten out the U.S. misinformation mess once again in a series of tweets. The Iraqi State has not officially voted for ejecting U.S. forces “because of Trump’s miscalculated move to kill Soleimani. What happened is different. ”

The Iraqi Prime Minister Mahdi told the Parliament the U.S. troops were not in the country based on anything the Parliament could handle.

1- Iraqi PM Abdul-Mahdi sent a letter to Parliament in which he argued US troops exist in Iraq, not based on a treaty ratified by Parliament, but on 2 letters from past cabinets to the UN. Hence, Parliament has no role in ejection.

The P.M. wants to disarm Shia militias in exchange for limiting U.S. troops.

2- Iraqi PM’s trying to trade disarming Shia militias for limiting scope of US troops. He wrote: “Whoever wants to become a political power, has to surrender arms, join armed forces, and forgo any political allegiance (i.e. to Iran) other than to military and commander-in-chief.”

The Parliament barely had a quorum, and it was not legislation.

3- #Iraq parliament barely had a quorum for session on ejecting US troops. Sunni and Kurdish blocs boycotted the session (thus taking America’s side over Iran), and thus quorum was 170 of 328 (half + 4, just like Hezbollah designated a PM in Lebanese parliament with half + 4)

4- The text Iraqi Parliament voted on was not a legislation, but a non-binding resolution.

The Iraqi P.M. only said the U.S. would leave on a timetable, which means indefinite.

5- To deflect Iranian anger, Abdul-Mahdi said US troops will leave, according to timetable. Troops of Assad dynasty occupied Lebanon for 29 years, with Assad and Lebanese saying withdrawal on its way, but tied to timetable. In Mid Eastern countries, timetables mean indefinitely

Mahdi has made it clear that it is in their interest to remain neutral.

6- In his letter to Parliament, Abdul-Mahdi clearly states that Iraqi interest is to maintain neutrality between America and Iran, and that if Iraq antagonizes America, it risks losing its international status (and implicitly oil revenue, just like Iran).

Columnist Mr. Abdul-Hussain said the NY Times is far more pro-Iran than the Washington Post.

7- NYT is, by far, much more pro-Iran than Wash Post. The post reported that “tens of thousands” mourned Soleimani in Ahwaz. NYT made the number of mourners “hundreds of thousands.”


Bottom line is, Iraqi parliament vote was an Iranian face-saving measure. Iran is in a bind: If it retaliates without claiming its attack, it does not count as revenge for Soleimani. If Iran claims the attack, regime risks further wrath, in a country whose economy is in free fall.

The most probable outcome of #Soleimani‘s killing is more of the same: Low-intensity Iranian warfare against America, Iran never engaging in direct war, but maintaining her proxy war, fighting America to the last Arab. But with Soleimani out, Iranian proxy war will be much weaker.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

1 Comment
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Prisoner
The Prisoner
3 years ago

That’s a good analysis. But Trump has an opening to leave Iraq.