In the early hours of friday, u. s. troops killed iran's revolutionary guard, al-qaeda brigade leader sulaimani and iraqi shia militia \"people mobilization group\" commander muhammadis. The move strongly shook the Middle East, with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, vowing to \"exact severe revenge\" on the United States, and the U.S. embassy in Iraq and the State Department calling Friday for U.S. citizens in Iraq to \"leave immediately\" the country.
The escalation of the U.S.-Iranian conflict was pushed backwards until December 27 last year when a U.S. base in northern Iraq was shelled by rockets that killed a U.S. civilian contractor and wounded four U.S. soldiers. Two days later, u. s. troops bombed the \"real brigade\" of iraq's shia militias, which they believed were responsible for the incident, killing 25 people in the group and denouncing iran as behind the attack on u. s.bases. Washington again accused iran of taking \"full responsibility\" for the siege of the american embassy in iraq on december 31st. The targeted removal of Suleimani is the latest escalation of the situation.
Understanding the current situation requires more extensive information. The United States overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003 through war, but the situation in Iraq did not go as far as America wanted. Iraq's political map has been sectarian and tribalized, while Shias make up 60% of the country's population, giving Tehran plenty of room to move in Iraq. Mr sulimani's visit to baghdad in parts of iran and iraq appears to be \"normal \", so they call the u.s. killing sulaimani\" assassination \"and\" international terrorism \".
Did washington want the american revolutionary guard's al-qaeda brigade to be a terrorist group, the united states and iran to refer to each other as terrorism, and then both sides to avenge each other and kill each other?
The United States certainly has more power and means to kill an important official like Iran. But how much hatred would the killing of a Suleimani provoke among Shia Muslims, or at least would America's people in the Middle East become safer?
To be sure, the anger and hatred that the US has provoked in Iran and in the pro-Iranian regions far outweighs the fear it wants to implant in those regions. Washington's elite should really think about how many senior officials and even leaders the united states has killed from the war in afghanistan to this day. The United States also paid a huge cost of life and spent so much money, but did the United States frighten those who hate the United States in the Middle East?
The United States helped the Israelis beat the Arabs in their early years, then helped Israel negotiate with the Arabs, and then later supported the Arab Spring, which until today has helped Israel and Sunni regimes confront Shia regimes. Throughout, however, America has always had enemies in the Middle East. It's like sitting in an armored car, crushing a group of people, but also guarding against a group of people. The other side is not safe, and it is only safe to sit in an armored iron shell.
Washington may well have underestimated the seriousness of the political fallout from killing Suleimani, and Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,'s expression of \"hard revenge \"is more than a mere threat, as it represents an emotion and a voice of Shia society in the Middle East. Even if the next Iranian official forces do not start, will some of the regional forces act spontaneously?
America is so powerful that challenges make it it itchy to think that force is the best way to use it. However, force can only kill, but cannot transform the people.
America's policies in the Middle East cannot fail in general, and what Washington is thinking about today is best suited to anger American voters and convert them into votes in the government's favour. Today's u. s.governments aren't considering what they can do to help solve the middle east in the long run, and they aren't interested in making such long-term investments in the middle east. They prefer short-term operations.