Trump reset the Obama Grand Bargain with the Mullahs by taking out Soleimani
Obama tried to set the arc of history towards the Mullahs, handing Iran the Middle East in exchange for nuclear compromises. Trump just bent that arc. Whether that bend ends up breaking Iranian regional expansion remains to be seen.
In the short run, the killing of Major General Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps., is a complete victory for Trump. The killing came after a long series of Iranian provocations over the past several months and years.
The killing of an American and the attack on the American Embassy in Baghdad, together with planned attacks in the near future, were too much and provoked the drone attack on Soleimani.
The tepid retaliation of the Iranians, firing a modest number of missiles at bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq with no casualties, seems to have been mostly for show, so the Mullah regime could tell Iranians that retaliation was taken without provoking a strong American rection. That domestic Iranian audience was told that dozens of Americans died, when in fact no one died.
Of course, the retaliation may not be over, and we are likely to see an attempt to bleed Americans in the region — but that carries a risk of American reaction even if carried out by Iranian proxies. So let’s see how this develops.
The reaction-retaliation analysis that dominates the media, with a heavy focus on the Iran Nuclear Deal, misses the bigger importance of what Trump has done. By taking out the military architect of Iran’s expansionist plans in the Middle East and beyond, and then forcing the Iranians to back down from meaningful relatiation, Trump has disrupted Obama administration Middle East plans.
The Iran Nuclear Deal has to be understood as one part of a bigger Grand Bargain promoted on the left. That Grand Bargain normalized the Mullah regime as a regional power in exchange for the Mullahs playing nicer on nuclear and other issues. That was the objective pursued by the Obama administration, to hand the Middle East to the Iranians in exchange for a decade delay in Iran developing nuclear material for a weapon.
It was what in early June 2009, near the start of the so-called Green Revolution, I called Negotiations Preconditioned On Mullah Rule:
During the campaign and after assuming the presidency, Barack Obama repeatedly stated his willingness to engage in negotiations with Iran without any preconditions. But that was and is not true.
The events of the past two weeks, including the revelation that Obama sent a letter in May to “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reveal that there is one precondition to negotiations which Obama willingly embraces: United States acceptance of Mullah rule in Iran in perpetuity.
Acceptance of Mullah rule, notwithstanding what the people of Iran may want or basic human rights, is the key to the Grand Bargain the Obama administration seeks to strike with Iran. In fact, U.S. help to perpetuate the Mullahtocracy appears to be the ONLY precondition.
That Grand Bargain was still at issue when nuclear negotiations entered a critical phase in 2012, as I wrote in Obama on verge of his grand Iranian bargain:
It looks like Obama is going to get the “grand bargain” which has been the point of U.S. policy towards Iran since the Obama administration stood silently as Iranians took to the streets in June 2009.
The grand bargain theory assures the Iranian theocracy’s continued control over not just Iran but an extended terrorist web extending from Syria and Lebanon to South America in exchange for supposed beefed-up monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program. It is the culmination of Obama’s “negotiation without precondition” campaign promise, which presupposes the false choice between war and peace, when non-military confrontation of the mullahs and support of the Iranian people is a third way which is off the table….
The mullahs keep their nuclear program, put some window dressing on inspections, and get economic and political lifelines as well as international assurances.
Meanwhile, the U.S. becomes complicit in the continued existence of the mullah regime, protecting it from its own people and assuring another generation of terror throughout the Middle East and beyond.
The Iran Nuclear Deal was the consummation of this Grand Bargain, as I wrote in 2015, Obama sweeps history toward the Mullahs:
I can’t recall an event since I started this website in 2008 that has been as historically consequential as the nuclear deal the United States and five other countries just struck with Iran.
It is the sweep of history.
The deal is Obama’s deal. He drove it, he crafted it with John Kerry as the scrivener, and he pulled the other powers along with it.
The defects in the Iran nuclear deal are being exposed in great detail. Those problems are serious and real.
But what has troubled me the most as I read through the varied technical analyses is the same thing that has bothered me since June 2009, when the Iranian people rose up against the Mullah regime after fraudulent elections….
Barack Obama cast his lot with the Mullahs in 2009, and has again in 2015.
The economic and military sanctions on Iran will be lifted, the nuclear program continued, and above all, the Mullahs strengthened throughout the region, and beyond.
In every way, Iran is the new hegemon.
That will be the sweep of history, and it didn’t need to be that way.
But it’s what Obama always has wanted, and his greatest achievement.
That Grand Bargain is the context in which Iran used the tens of billiions of dollars it obtained from the Iran Nuclear Deal to ramp up it’s meddling throughout the region. Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal was an important step in dismantling this Grand Bargain, but the Iranians were under the illusion that they could continue their expansion throughout the region anyway.
Trump taking out Soleimani has the potential to the end that Grand Bargain, and what little is left of its main component, the Iran Nuclear Deal.
The Obama administration tried to set the arc of history towards the medieval Mullah dealth cult, handing Iran the Middle East in exchange for nuclear compromises. Trump taking out Soleimani and staring down threats of retaliation, just bent that arc. Whether that bend ends up breaking Iranian regional expansion remains to be seen.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Kerry the traitor, a reminder of why he is poison to political office in any sane part of the country.
Didn’t he get lots and lots of practice at that in Viet Nam?
After he was safely home and figured out which way the wind was blowing in Socialist-Democrat politics for the next generation.
How is this guy walking free? How is clinton walking free?
It’s the (D) after their names.
He’s walking free with Clinton because we’ve had a succession of ineffective and incompetent Attorneys General starting with Eric “Obama’s Wingman” Holder and ending with William Barr. All willing to overlook the corruption and treason of the elite. Disgusting.
William Barr – 2019 – Donald Trump
Jeff Sessions – 2017 – 2018 – Donald Trump
Loretta Lynch – 2015 – 2017 – Barack Obama
Eric Holder – (2009 – 2015 ) Barack Obama
Pretty much says it all.
If this does not end up breaking Iranian regional expansion,
God Bless Israel and President Trump!
The Soleimani Killing: An Initial Assessment
By Prof. Hillel Frisch, Prof. Eytan Gilboa, Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen, Dr. Doron Itzchakov and Dr. Alex Joffe
Some might argue that the drone strike at Baghdad Airport was another
example of a high-tech operation by the US against its foes that was
a tactical success but a strategic failure. Holders of this view might
infer, in light of the Iranian regime’s newly strengthened ability to stir
outrage against the US, that it is coming out of this series of clashes as
the winner despite the loss of Soleimani.
This is an erroneous reading.
Soleimani’s death is a major blow to Iran.
Ayatollah Khamenei’s designation of Esmail Ghaani, Soleimani’s second-
in-command, as Soleimani’s successor as head of the Quds Force is an indicator of the magnitude of that blow.
Ghaani is in his sixties (as was
Soleimani)—not the ideal age to take over a major undercover organization
with tentacles throughout much of the Middle East and beyond.
Even if the ayatollah were inclined to select a younger replacement, the
targeting of Soleimani prevents him from making such a choice. The
killing proves beyond doubt that the Iranian security system is riddled
with informants. They knew when Soleimani left his secret hideout
in Damascus, what plane he boarded, at which airport he was going
to land, which vehicles he and his retinue entered upon landing, and
exactly what time those vehicles were heading out of the airport.
This suggests an information flow involving tens if not hundreds of
informants closely connected to the upper echelons of the Quds Force.
These informants could and did provide this information to their American
counterparts in real time to get the US helicopters in position for the kill.
The killing of Number Two in any country creates a devastating chain of
destructive suspicion and anxiety in the corridors of power. Khamenei’s
only choice in naming a successor was to choose from among old
stalwarts who are above suspicion. Every individual who is newer to the
organization and to the wider security network is now suspect.
Iran’s attack last night showed how worried they really are. The US had plenty of warning through their own systems, but consider the targets, long range and relatively few missiles. Add to it, talk is emerging that Iran warned it was coming.
That doesn’t seem like a regime that is willing to risk US retaliation for attacks where US lives are lost.
This was Iran making propaganda for keeping their own power and saving face. They lob some bombs, they don’t hit anything major and don’t kill a single American, then they claim it’s a slap in the face of America so they are good, and done.
He got droned within a short period of time of landing. With precision, a surgical strike that took out probably their most important terrorist. These Mullahs are great at sending other out to die for their cause, but notice they don’t put themselves on the line.
Their retaliation, the need to force turn out of their people for the funeral, the protests they had to violently put down, that all adds up to a society that is far closer to looking to overthrow the regime. The sanctions are hurting them.
This all exposed how shaky the Mullah’s position in power is. And they fear Trump. Just like they feared Reagan, possibly more so.
Trump showed restraint with their earlier actions, but just like the left in this country they went too far. As Tyson said, everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth. Trump punched Iran in the mouth, hard.
Paul Krugman acting very strangely about child pornography found on his computer by his IT firm. Hmmm
Saw it earlier. Someone said his explanation of how the hackers got in was impossible. Kind of like the criminal telling the cops “these aren’t my pants that I’m wearing”.
And then he said ‘Qanon’ did it, whoever that is. I always thought he was some fraud who pretended to have inside information on Mueller/Russia. I have not been to a location (s)he posts at, but can hardly imagine why (s)he would be disseminating illegal pornography, much less framing someone with a class B Federal felony. Which is also a class B felony.
No, he did not say Qanon did it, he said someone might be trying to Qanon him. I.e. to set him up.
He is a fraud, but he’s not notable for anything to do with Mueller or Russia. He’s notable as a (not-a-)Nobel-winning “economist”, which just goes to show that even in the serious Nobels there’s occasionally some slippage.
Oh, you mean Qanon. It’s not a person, it’s a theory. The Wikipedia entry is not too inaccurate.
Best Comment on Krugman’s story: “Do ya think Mrs. Krugman will buy it???”
“For those unfamiliar with QAnon, Q is a person (or maybe a group of people) who puts up cryptic messages on online bulletin boards. (I use the plural “boards” because a board will frequently be attacked, and Q will relocate to another.) Some people believe that Q is a highly connected person who has deep knowledge about worldwide trends…”
“One thing I did learn from my conversation is that Q contends that a major connection linking the world’s power players is pedophilia. One doesn’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to notice from recent news stories that people in power often use that power to abuse children. ”
“Interestingly, even though Krugman claimed to have been the victim of an incredibly serious crime, and suspected that QAnon might have been framing him, he mentioned in his first tweet only that he talked to his computer security service and in his second tweet only that the Times was on the case.”
I recently got a cease-and-desist from my Internet service saying that I’d downloaded a movie using bit torrent, which I know for a fact I did not do. They said it was 100% sure it happened, but nobody has my password, and I did not find the file.
If you have a WiFi router, change the WiFi password. It may be that someone has hacked your wifi pwd and is connecting that way.
Then let me tell you about some very smart grandkids…
I don’t care for PK, but he is not stupid enough to place child porn on his own computer. He’s also not weird or loser-y enough to be into that, I’d think. Intellectually delusional, yes, perv, I doubt it.
There’s a ton of ways your system can be compromised, and writing files into your browser cache or simply onto your hd is not a deep secret. PK doesn’t get the details of how a PC works, so it is not surprising that his explanation is a bit off. If he hosts a blog or website on his pc, it may have a static IP which is even easier to target.
Everybody has a static IP. This isn’t widely known, but I found out a few years ago when I tried to get mine changed. If you change internet providers, you will get a different IP, but that implies you have more than one local high speed provider.
If your computer has CP, your computer downloaded it. The only innocent explanation is it has a virus or trojan. That’s quite different from Krugman’s explanation. Law enforcement could easily detect that.
This is not true.
Nope. You can buy static IP ranges, but unless you are a business, it’s really hard to. And you have to have a justification for the IANA.
Both right and wrong. A static IP can be defined as something you buy for the purpose of hosting a service, or it can be defacto.
As a matter of fact, your IP does not change unless you change internet providers.
No. It’s not hard to get a static IP address. It’s just very expensive. So it’s usually out of reach of anyone but a business. But yes, you can get one if you wish. Just pony up the money to your ISP and your set.
For purposes of Krugman’s fever-dream it really doesn’t matter if he has a static IP address or not. With access to the router logs, all IP traffic can be traced back from source to destination. So even if he has a dynamic IP address, his ISP will have logs of what address he had and when, and the traffic can be traced. Further, there are probably MAC addresses which are immutable and assigned to each network card, that can also be used to trace traffic.
Check your non static IP address. Check it again in 6 months. It will most likely be the same. Mine has remained the same for over a year.
It’s not defined as static, but it almost never changes for most host companies.
If you stay connected, even a dynamic IP won’t change.
Forum software records IPs, and I was once misidentified as another forum user (not this forum; one NSFW) because some idiot administrator didn’t know about dynamic IP addresses. All that he really knew is that I and the other person used the same ISP at one time or another. ISPs are assigned blocks of IP addresses, so we could have the same address, although not at the same time, of course.
As they used to say before it became too serious to be humorous—to err is human; to really foul things up requies a computer.
Providers are required to be able to identify customers by their IP address.
It can change, but in practice, it doesn’t.
Providers can identify users by IP address and date and time. They know who was logged in to which IP at which time, so they can say that until 1:23 am it was this person, and then it was that person.
Even in practice, every time you reboot your modem you may get assigned a new IP.
Those who think you get a new IP address when you reboot your modem should try it and report back.
It may vary from one provider to another.
To tom_swift’s comment, your message board didn’t know which IP you were when. But if there’s a police investigation, they can get your ISP’s records, and that would reveal it.
This whole static vs. dynamic thing is a distraction. In any case, the investigators will know what your IP was at any given time, from nonpublic information they can obtain.
“but he is not stupid”
Yes he is. He’s made stupid predictions for years. He’s dumber than an ant.
As far as pervert status, he’s weird enough, but I’m going to give him the same benefit of doubt the left gave Kavanaugh.
You can avoid a static IP by using a VPN.
Is he blaming the Russians yet?
Um, no. He wrote that someone was using “his” IP address to download the stuff to their computer. No telling what he means by “his”; did he have a dedicated IP, or was it just the IP his provider assigned him for a while, or what?
That’s like saying someone used his name to speak to him. “Hello, Paul!”
HOW did someone use his IP address to d/l stuff to his computer? Was his computer accepting anonymous ftp connections, hm? See I still remember this stuff, from when that’s how we used to play on the internet.
Pedos sell themselves to the democrats cheaply.
Again, Barr is protecting the elite. Why no SWAT raid to seize the computer?
John Kerry turns my stomach, traitor that he is.
All the more reason why Trump MUST be re-elected in 2020. Do normal Americans understand the consequences?
Only good news for John Kerry is that all Lefty elites are pompous, smug, and clueless. He no longer stands out.
I saw #TeheranNancy trend on twitter yesterday. I long suspected we had an infiltrator prior to PDJT. I referred to him as the Teheraninan Candidate in several different sites and social media. I can see how a guy like o, with his background and indoctrination at madrassas would grow up to hate America. But john kerry? What has to go wrong in a person’s character to end up like him? The swift boat crews he worked with obviously spotted the deep flaw/s in him. Then his atrocious winter soldier activities. I hope people learn a lesson about these complete frauds who spend years in politics screwing the American people and getting rich in the process. We don’t need any more o’s, kerrys, bidens or clintons or their ilk.
Long game, O wants to get rid of Israel or at least have it perpetually on the brink of extinction. He was taught that from age five, and you don’t forget what you are taught as a child. The deal wasn’t meant to gain advantage for the USA, the intent was to gain advantage for the regime Valeria and O had greater affection for.
That Grand Bargain normalized the Mullah regime as a regional power in exchange for the Mullahs playing nicer on nuclear and other issues. That was the objective pursued by the Obama administration, to hand the Middle East to the Iranians in exchange for a decade delay in Iran developing nuclear material for a weapon.
Even Reagan got suckered into this one. Remember Ollie North and the ridiculous key-shaped cake? Makes the Russian “reset” button look sensible.
The difference is that in Reagan’s day it was reasonable to fall for the claim that there is a faction of “moderate” mullahs who need to be encouraged and helped so they can gain power from the “radicals”. It was a new claim and it’s inherently plausible. 30 years later it is not reasonable to still fall for it.
Question: Could other factions of the Iranian ruling junta/council/whatever you call it, have been afraid of Soleimani, and been leaking information to the US in the hopes that the Great Satan would kill the serpent at their throats? After all, politics in that region frequently is fought more with guns than ballots. I’m not saying the elusive (and probably mythical) moderates are behind the info, but the less-willing-to-be-offered-up-as-a-sacrifice group would have good reason to dish on such a ruthless and immoral killer. Would be a possibly good sign, after all.
Sure, didn’t necessarily have to be fear, just rivals for power.
Iranians will back down from power plays. The will stop sending their speed boats after our ships and generally not provoke the new kid on the playground who for the next 5 years, will beat the ever living snot out of them for attempting to flex any military muscle.
What I would expect them to do (or what I’d do) is devote a good bit of energy towards cyber attacks where military retaliation and destruction of infrastructure is less likely. These attacks can be carried out from anywhere in the world. Not their favorite game, but one they can effectively play until a Dem sits in the oval office again whom they can extort some more pallets of cash from.
Short of that- probably I would expect a lot of “lone wolf” attacks on soft US targets abroad via proxy. aka- the usual.
They won’t last another 5 years. Keep the sanctions, keep turning them up, tell the EU to go F themselves if they try to help break them.
They are already very weak. The right spark and they’ll collapse and it will be sudden.
You are correct that a response to cyber attack is ‘less likely’. However, cyber attacks can be traced back, given time, to the source even through a chain of proxy servers. Additionally, the attacks all have various ‘signatures’ of techniques and software versions that can be used to identify the actor. Similar to ability to ID a group setting off a bomb by the construction, materials, methods of detonation, placement, target profile, etc.
So plausible deniability ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ can exist in cyber attacks, BUT…100% certainty or even ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ are not necessary burdens to overcome in a military counter strike whether that be cyber or kinetic.
Personally, my judgment would be gather sufficient evidence for a tactical response, provide the nation hosting the servers/routers used to facilitate proxy/VPN IP address, along with the service provider company an opportunity to tighten up their defenses. Heck, help them if they will let us. We have a whole Cyber Command at DoD.
Should another event occur utilizing servers/routers used by those companies or located in those nations then maybe it warrants a cyber counterattack vs that company and or nations servers. Beyond that, an IP address tells the location of the points along the pathway so it ain’t hard to put a missile through the roof at those locations. Obviously that would be a last resort but still an option. Probably only take one cruise missile through a roof to get everyone to start paying attention and take corrective action instead of lip service.
All these folks claiming that cyber attacks are from some ‘darkweb’ untraceable source are ignorant, perhaps willfully so. The fact is tracing the pathway used for a cyber attack isn’t that difficult, just time consuming. If we are willing to hold nations accountable for misuse of cyber within their nations we can do so; diplomatically, economically and militarily if we choose to.
Disagree with you on the likelihood of Iran actually ordering up kinetic attacks. That is the last thing they they should do for fear of a disproportionate kinetic response; see the late MR Soleimani for an example.
Israel has already melted down their hard drives (how many times?)yet they are still progressing towards nuclear caps- they are not an economy that is succeptible to cyber attacks.
Our dipshit infrastructure can’t even shut down robo callers, or wild fires started by vagrants, much less a cyber terror attack funded by less than the Iranians spent on the missile that took down the jet carrying their own citizens. We’ve got e-targets that are civilian and government that can’t respond. Save for the tech giants and hardened federal infrastructure, few targets are resilient. We’ve already seen state level infrastructure attacked by nobodies with no resources. If Iran (or even some Jr high school kids from Brazil) wanted to play this game, they could play it hard and long and never suffer an ounce of retaliation.
Heck- they could wreak Havok with swatting alone for a year, killing dozens of Americans and it would take 2 years for local PD and 911 to wise up.
oh- and they could do all of this on foreign soil and be six countries away from where the attack initiated by the time anyone responds.
With kerry, like biden, obama, clinton, pelosi and the like: just follow the money.
First Prime Minister’s Questions: Boris Goads hard-Left Corbyn Over Taking Cash From Iran:
They paid off everybody. Now: justice.
With the Iran nuclear deal now in shambles, Trump has forced the world to make yet another key decision about global power alliances. Trump has exposed and discredited the inevitable US decline into a China Century, provided pivotal support to Brexit thus ending all hopes for a new EUtopian/Russia empire, established American dominance on energy production, exposed and confounded the corrupt dirty money behind the “New World Order” and the American economy and politics, among other things.
Not bad for a supposed “worse than Hitler” madman. And he is doing it with good humor. No angry tirades about doom and gloom or “da Joooooos!!”. I am liking crazy.
Once you found out Barry was best buds with Rev Wright you did not have to be Jeanne Dixon to know what sort of plans he would try to implement foreign and domestic policy wise..Also Barry Iran Mid East and Cuba polices no diff than his BLM and shakedown the middle class policies here in us.
The killing of Soleimani suggests that just as thousands have shown themselves willing to demonstrate openly against Iran, many others are choosing to be informers at a time when the Iranian rial is worth two-thirds of its value less than two years ago.
Most Iraqis love neither Iran nor the US and are sitting on the sidelines waiting to see which state’s influence prevails over their country. The killing of Soleimani was a massive show of American force because he was touted by Iran as invincible.
Terrorists, foreign and domestic.
Actually, 4fun, Krugman’s excuse sounds more like that used recently by a Louisiana woman as she was inprocessed at a parish jail on unrelated felony charges. The cops strip searched her and found baggies of meth in her vagina. She claimed the meth wasn’t hers and she had no idea how it got into her vagina.
There is a very remote possibility that such a thing could happen and that she could have been so debilitated that she was unaware.
NK, sure it’s very remotely possible. The “real smuggler” may just have found the perfect drug mule. A female druggie who never has to pee.
It’s also equally likely the “real smuggler” is also the “real killer” OJ vowed to hunt down.
Hey! That could happen too.
Back to the topic at hand. BeagleEar’s instincts are correct. Obama had only two reasons for wanting to become President over his despised enemies, the American people. To punish them for their sins and to help his real friends. Regimes and other entities abroad that hated America as much as he does.
And who through that analytical who deserves help more than the regime that calls us the Great Satan, wishes death upon us at least every Friday, and actually declared war on us in 1979.
Hence the JCPOA; one giant tongue bath for the Mullahs. Essentially it lifted all sanctions and gave Tehran billions of what was NOT their money in exchange for absolutely nothing. Obama always wanted Iranian signatures on something that resembled an a nuclear arms control agreement. Obama needed the cover of this “deal” even more desperately after he mouthed off about red lines in Syria. Then Assad gleefully stomped all over his red lines and exposed Obama for the empty suit that he is (for all issues unrelated to his passionate anti-Americanism).
So he had his minions carefully craft an arrangement that appeared to have an inspections regime lame though it was. And appeared to have some sort of process, long and drawn out with numerous exit ramps, for dealing with Iranian cheating in the highly unlikely event the inspectors detected it. At the end of this farce he, Obama, and the other heads of state that agreed to this charade might have to do something.
But this was a complete fraud. A complete betrayal of every American silly and gullible enough to believe that in Obama they had a President who was on their side.
The JCPOA was carefully crafted so it could never detect cheating in the first place.
Having ensured the nuclear-armed Mullahs would have the financial wherewithal to impose their rule and will upon the oppressed Iranian people until the end of time Obama had only one remaining concern. What if infighting among the Mullahs threatened the stability of the regime? And consequently the stability and security of Iran’s nuclear program/inevitable arsenal.
Fortunately for Obama there was one stabilizing force that could guarantee the security of the program and resultant weapons. The IRGC’s Quds Force. Even better it was headed by a man whose character and work Obama greatly admired; Qasem Suleimani.
Since Obama frequently told official of Arab countries (I am getting this from multiple Arab sources) that they should be more like Iran, with their own Quds forces, and when he gushed his admiration for Suleimani it was without qualification.
So apparently killing and maiming American troops was part of Suleimani’s body of work that Obama admired.
Obama made it clear that Sulaimani and his Quds Force were central to the agreement he had with Iran. This is why US intel had such an easy time tracking the guy as he traveled. Suleimani figured he was too important to this country that he didn’t need to take security precautions. He thought no administration would touch him, not even DJT’s.
And when obama gave the Iranians billions including pallets of cash Obama admin officials were forced to acknowledge that some of that would go to terrorism. But, like John Kerry in his January 2016 CNBC interview, they made noises as if that was an “unfortunate but unintended side effect.” No. Obama intended that as much if not all of that money go to Suleimani and the Quds Force.
I recommend everyone go to the Hudson Institute website and read “Obama Strikes A Deal – With Qasem Suleimani.” It’s by Lee Smith dated 14 July 2015.