New York Times
The New York Times said that US President Donald Trump's decision to kill Iran's Qods Force commander Qassem Soleimani put the United States on the brink of a new and devastating conflict in the Middle East.
In an opinion piece published by the newspaper, American writer Michelle Goldberg saw that after three "horrific" years, America had reached the stage that many people have been afraid to reach since Trump's election as president.
The author pointed to a series of repercussions following the assassination of Soleimani, including NATO's suspension of training Iraqi forces, and the Iraqi parliament's vote to evacuate US forces from the country.
Question about the impending attack
She also pointed to the US administration's announcement that the assassination of General Soleimani was aimed at disrupting an "imminent attack" that would endanger American lives in the Middle East. But Goldberg believes there is no reason to believe this.
It quoted a statement made by a US official and described it suspiciously to the New York Times, in which he said that new intelligence information did not refer to any attack about to take place.
The Washington Post also reported that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had for months been inciting a strike against Soleimani.
It is not self-defense
Goldberg considered that the assassination of Soleimani seemed to be a "horrific" result of the intersection of many of the driving forces and not in self-defense, noting the influence within the administration of figures like Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence, whom she describes as hawks "obsessed" with hostility against Iran.
The American journalist claimed that those who defeated Trump from the Ministry of Defense officials had all left his administration.
It quoted author Bergen as saying in his book, "Trump and his Generals," that former Defense Secretary James Mattis had instructed his aides not to offer Trump options to engage in a military confrontation with Iran.
But after Mattis left the administration, military commanders suggested to Trump the possibility of assassinating Soleimani, the "most extreme option" - as the New York Times put it in a previous report - that even those same officials were "stunned" when the president adopted him.
Personal motivation
Goldberg suggested that Trump's motives for adopting that option were different, as he was upset when watching on TV supporters of pro-Iranian militias storming the American embassy in Baghdad, and he was also upset about the "negative media coverage" of a decision he issued last year to strike against Iran. Before it cancels it after that.
The writer called Trump a "professor of projections," saying that his accusations of others serve as evidence of the way he will behave about an event. She said Trump has been stating time and time again that his predecessor Barack Obama would launch a war against Iran "to save face" and that his popularity was declining at a time when he was seeking re-election.
Goldberg went on to say that launching a war or entering a military confrontation with Iran appears to be a natural step for Trump in order to divert the attention of the people from the troubles he suffers from, as he faces the prospects of his parliamentary isolation after the House of Representatives accused him of using power and obstructing the work of Congress.
The American journalist goes on to say that most of the American people have never accepted Trump, but that many of them are accustomed to it after three years of his term.
Her article concludes by claiming that Trump's presidential term has now entered the "nightmares stage," adding that "the biggest surprise was that it took too long."
Source: New York Times
