Those options are not particularly specific to the situation. Two far more relevant ones might be that both the Saudis and the Isrealis, for their own reasons, want nothing better than the destruction of the current Iranian government, and the US, who have their own reasons for sucking up to both, is willing and keen to oblige. It also helps that this serves as a nice distraction to any process of impeachment.

There is no war. Neither the US or Iran wants a war.

Theory by StreetlighX noted.

BitconnectCarlos is skeptical. I welcome your skepticism if it for sure leads the USA into peace with Iran.

I didn't say it was going to lead to peace. It's probably not going to lead to war either. The strike comes after a long string of Iranian offenses. On a moral level, I have no problem with the strike. On a strategic level, I think the jury is still out but based on the information I have now I don't hate it given the history of past Iranian transgressions. Yes it could have been executed better and more people could have been informed about it.

Yes it could have been executed better and more people could have been informed about it. — BitconnectCarlos

Think of the bookmakers. Death toll is a large unknown at this point. Which American city will be targeted with a nuclear warhead? I shudder to think it will be Los Alamos. If that city goes, the whole planet goes. They have hidden weapons of mass destruction under the sand in the Arizona desert. I think the only thing that can stop that war now is peace in the Middle East.

If the official story is true, the strike was to protect American diplomats, servicemen and interests in Iraq. That seems to be a sufficient reason to attack. The official story is rarely true, however.

Why do you think the USA is going into war with Iran? — god must be atheist

One word: Israel.



Well, yeah.

Obama was apparently not too keen on it. So, Benjamin did not manage to get his way. This time, it may actually work, but again, not sure. It must have been hard to get CENTCOM to "accidentally" press that button.

I wonder how much you need to "infiltrate" for that?

ha ah aha ha! ;-)

P.S. This time, it's even better than the fake "Zimmerman telegram":

The Zimmermann Telegram (or Zimmermann Note or Zimmerman Cable) was a secret diplomatic communication issued from the German Foreign Office in January 1917 that proposed a military alliance between Germany and Mexico. If the United States entered World War I against Germany, Mexico would recover Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. The telegram was intercepted and decoded by British intelligence. — On how to drag the unwilling Americans kicking and screaming into a new war.

If the Iraninan general was so much a problem, there was a right way and a wrong way to deal with him. Scrotus did it the completely and comprehensively wrong way. So wrong, in fact, and so consistently wrong with respect to all US interests - in all ways - That Putin as puppet master, however it's done, is all that really makes sense.

Thanks for being honest.

The United States has always carried out extrajudicial killings and the assassination of the Iranian General was nothing short of a violation of international law. Not to mention that it was carried out in Iraqi territory. Imagine the second most powerful US official getting assassinated by a rival country. There would be a full scale invasion and all international support would goto US.

I think US killed him for weakening the final threat to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Both these countries are certainly quite happy with the result.It was a message to all those who oppose Israel/Saudi Arabia. It is same old power play. US wants to have power in an undiluted form.

There won't be a war in the traditional sense. Iran will target American interests which are spread around the middle east. In short, you can expect anything. Even a terrorist attack by the militia in US. Thanks to the genius plan of Donald Trump in using iran card for 2020.

I think US killed him for weakening the final threat to Israel and Saudi Arabia. — Wittgenstein

In fact, the timing was actually quite bad, given the ongoing impeachment-zilla, I cannot imagine that Trump really signed off on it. Of course, he does not want to look like he is not in charge. So, he has now resolutely taken ownership!

What surprises me, is that Trump even doubled down in his speech in West Palm Beach. His speech is insanely insulting to Iran. It is even more insulting than the extrajudicial killing itself of Suleimani:

"We caught him in the act and terminated him."
"We will find you. We will eliminate you."
"Suleimani made the death of innocent people his sick passion."
"Contributing to terrorist plots as far away as Delhi and London."
"We take comfort in knowing that his reign of terror is over."
"What the United States did yesterday should have been done long ago." --> subtly critical of Obama, of course. — Donald Trump on 'terminating' Suleimani

We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war. — Donald Trump not not not going to war. Not at all.

After his barrage of insults at the dead Iranian state official, whom he "terminated" for good purpose, he still "don't want war". We'll spit in your face, pee on your mother's grave, fart in your general direction, and defecate in your living room, but hey, we are not interested in conflict! ;-)

There's no war, everyone needs to chill out. As Trump said, he killed the Iranian general to avoid a war, not to start one. Trump is the only person in Washington trying to not have a war. That's the platform he was elected on. I believe if he got us into another major Middle East war, that's the one thing that would cost him the presidency. I think he knows that too.

Trump is the only person in Washington trying to not have a war. — fishfry

They knew that Suleimani was going to be in Baghdad yesterday. They wouldn't have struck him while he was on Iranian territory. That would have been a little too much of a provocation.

How did they know that Suleimani was going to be there? What is the most likely reason that they even knew in what car he would arrive and leave?

Suleimani must undoubtedly have been there because he was invited to negotiate with US officials, who must have promised him a fantastic diplomatic breakthrough or so, if only he showed up ... It must have been an ambush. They must have conned him.

Furthermore, I seriously suspect that Trump was informed about the operation only after the facts. This is quite a victory for "incorruptible" Benjamin, of course. He must have had a big late-night party with his friends in Tel Aviv after this.

US administration will obviously say that they don't want to head into an another war but simultaneously create a situation which makes their intervention neccessary.

Classic strategy . America wants the oil supplying countries to be involved in the conflict so the economic progress of China and Russia can halt and become more unstable. That's another reason too.

If the official story is true, the strike was to protect American diplomats, servicemen and interests in Iraq. That seems to be a sufficient reason to attack. The official story is rarely true, however. — NOS4A2

"To protect our people there, we started a war with a country." Jesus, why are Americans so stupid? "In order to protect my car from your vandalism, I'll spray paint your house." "In order to protect my children in your school, I'll shoot the principal." "In order to protect my interest in your company, I'll destroy its main building." ETC.

I am not dissing you, NOS4A2, it's not your opinion, but the official line is the stupidest thing I've heard in my entire adult existence. It is a much bigger lie than I have ever suffered under Communism, and believe me, they knew how to lie.

None of the above is the reason, IF the US would get into a war with Iran. (As Fishfry said, there's still no war)

You should have one reason:

"Lack of any kind of long term strategy and the result of narrowly visioned and not well thought responses to situations that simply have been let to go out of control."

The US doesn't want a war with Iran. Iran has shot down it's drowns, have attacked US troops in Iraq, taken US servicemen as prisoners without the US going to war with it. This is just playing the "US is the reason for every war to happen" card. The only country that truly wants the US to attack Iran is Israel.

Yes, the reason IS the utter ineptness of Trump into handling US foreign policy in a difficult area and the lack of strong sane leadership to counter Trump's emotional responses. And I know, there is a different thread to that.

I think the main problem, as so often, is the lack in the US of any sense that other countries contain people with their own opinion and their own heroes, not to speak of their own conflicts, which sensible American politicians would exploit. For a country to dominate the world with power and unutterable ignorance and insensitivity combined is not going to make for an easy road to Empire, I think.

If there is a war, look to Israel. Couldn't be better timing for Netanyahu.

If there is a war, look to Israel. Couldn't be better timing for Netanyahu. — Baden

I don't understand the correlation. I was under the impression that Israel was incapable of defending itself until recently when I was "enlightened" to how well armed Israel is. Which leads me to question what role you think the USA would play if Israel is attacked?

Why do you think the USA is going into war with Iran?

There is a faction that likes war, in general. There are all sorts of corporations that benefit from a war. Certain areas of the world are seen as not 'with it', not in the neo-con, neo-lliberal playbook. Those factions what them to start to be. Heck, there are a lot more reasons.

One thing to mention is that some kind of parallel strike on a US general or cabinet member would be treated as an enormous breach of international law. If Vietnam had killed Kissinger, say, on a visit to Europe, for his terrorist acts, the moral outrage against this would have been....big.

USA has had enough of it -- it calls out Iran in a western-type shoot-out — god must be atheist

I would have voted for this, had it been written thusly:
"Leadership within the USA has had enough..."

We don't really know what real threats this may have averted, nor do we yet know how Iran will respond. I sincerely hope this was truly a product of reasoned judgment, but I'm highly suspicious of that. There will always be a cloud over this: what if we'd remained in the Iran-nucleal pact?

"To protect our people there, we started a war with a country." Jesus, why are Americans so stupid? "In order to protect my car from your vandalism, I'll spray paint your house." "In order to protect my children in your school, I'll shoot the principal." "In order to protect my interest in your company, I'll destroy its main building." ETC.

I am not dissing you, NOS4A2, it's not your opinion, but the official line is the stupidest thing I've heard in my entire adult existence. It is a much bigger lie than I have ever suffered under Communism, and believe me, they knew how to lie.

No war was started. So it’s stupid to say there is a war when there isn’t one.

I’m no pacifist because evil men are stopped by violent force. The blood-soaked career of a terrorist commander has ended. I’m sorry for your loss.

The blood-soaked career of a terrorist commander has ended. — NOS4A2

Trump is dead?

Trump is dead?

One of Iran’s top military leaders, Qasem Soleimani, was killed in a drone strike.

It is rather strange, since an isolated act of 'decapitation' accomplishes very little in a military sense. The person who was assassinated has likely already been replaced, and here's to hoping he's not worse than his predecessor. Remember what happened when the United States kicked out the Shah?

So what could it accomplish?

Perhaps it is meant to show support for Israel or Saudi Arabia. They're sweating buckets as the US leaves all the areas they occupied in chaos and Iran fills up the power vacuum.

Perhaps it was a diversion from something else?

Perhaps it was simply murder out of spite, considering Soleimani probably orchestrated a large part of the disaster the US faced in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So what could it accomplish?

Nature has a way of ending beefs. The strongest wins.

It puts the Ayatollah in a tough sport. Fight back and be demolished. Or do nothing and lose your credibility.

It puts the Ayatollah in a tough sport. Fight back and be demolished. Or do nothing and lose your credibility. — NOS4A2

You said it buddy!

Meanwhile your country gets to rest peacefully knowing American forces defend your continent while you sleep.

It puts the Ayatollah in a tough sport. Fight back and be demolished. Or do nothing and lose your credibility. — NOS4A2

If such a loss of credibility would take place, what would it amount to?

If such a loss of credibility would take place, what would it amount to?

I think it would reveal the Ayatollah’s “death to America” rhetoric to be empty, and his resolve to be weak. That’s not good for a country in grips of civil unrest.