Trump White House tried to kill U.S. damage in Iran attack, former official said | Donald Trump

[ad_1]

Donald Trumps White House has asked the Pentagon to play down and delay reports of brain damage suffered by U.S. troops from an Iranian missile attack in Iraq last year, according to a former defense spokesman.

Alyssa Farah said she avoided pressure from the White House, which happened after Trump first said no one was killed and then dismissed the injuries because of headaches and being less serious.

More than 100 U.S. troops were eventually diagnosed to have suffered traumatic brain damage in the missile attack on two Iraqi bases that were home to U.S. troops on Jan. 8, 2020, launched by Tehran in retaliation for the killing of U.S. drone to Revolutionary Guard general Qassem Suleimani five days earlier.

Nearly 80% of American victims from the missile attack returned to duty within a few days, but dozens had to flee to Germany and then the US for treatment.

Farah described the attack as the heaviest few hours of my life in an interview on a new podcast, One Decision, delivered by former CNN journalist Michelle Kosinski and the former head of Britain’s intelligence agency MI6 , and Sir Richard Dearlove.

Farah, who continues to work at the White House, said that when Trump claimed no casualties after the attack was true at the time we provided those facts to the president.

But he added: I think where things are shaking there is an effort from the White House that wants to say, it’s not successful the Iranians haven’t been successful in hurting our targets in response. And I think it’s so far away.

And I think the gloss over what ended up doing very significant damage to U.S. troops after the fact, Farah said on the podcast, was due to air on Thursday.

He said it was the Pentagon’s policy to release the facts when they arrived and verified, and as a result the total reported number of casualties went up throughout January 2020, which annoyed the White House.

We got pushback from the White House of, Can you report it differently? Can it be every 10 days or two weeks, or do we make a wrap after the fact? Said Farah. The White House would prefer if we didn’t provide a regular update on it. This is the drip, drip quote that unquotes bad news.

Farah said she did not give in to pressure, saying: My feeling is that, if my experience has taught me anything, transparency will always be your best friend in that field.

The murder of Suleimani, as his vehicle was leaving Baghdad airport on his arrival in Iraq on 3 January 2020, has become controversial. The UNs special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings at the time, Agnes Callamard, deemed it an unlawful murder because Washington did not provide sufficient evidence of an imminent threat from Suleimani.

Four days before the air strike a mob of Shia militias and their supporters breached the US embassy compound in Baghdad before they were convinced to withdraw. After Suleimani assassinated then U.S. secretary of state Mike Pompeo, it was claimed that there was evidence that Suleimani was planning an imminent attack against U.S. embassies and bases, and Trump later said there was a plan which exploded at our embassy. But members of Congress said there was no such claim in their intelligence briefing on the drone strike. Pompey later said that the strike was intended to deter.

Farah insisted that there was a highly credible, thoroughly planned potential to hurt U.S. and coalition partners.

Being close is really the word that I think people will hang on to how quickly it is, he added. Farah said he advised top Pentagon officials not to base the justification solely on claiming a close attack but because we have a terrorist on the battlefield in Iraq and a hard thing the leader should do. this, watching the Green Zone being attacked from the ground in Iraq.

U.S. legal opinion is divided on the Suleimani strike. Some scholars say this is justified by Iran’s generals ’role throughout the region in attacking the US and its allies. Others argue that does not provide sufficient cause under international law, because there is no declared state of war between the US and Iran.

I believe it violates international law because we are not fighting Iran, said Gary Solis, a retired sailor, former West Point professor at the military academy, and author of the 2006 book Law of Armed Conflict . Not only are we fighting Iran, but where we killed him is in a state where we have no war. So what authority do we have to kill him?

[ad_2]