You could be right! If so Trump murdered all these people!

That depends entirely on the political future of Iran.

There have been lots of protests against the present government there, and if these are in any way indicative of broader opinion, the people of Iran may actually welcome a change in government.

I am sure the Iranian opposition are already secretly celebrating the assassination.

If the present government comes down at some point within the next five years or so, Trump may be remembered as the president who catalyzed that (even if this assasaination made no real difference, but was just symbolic for dynamics that were already under way), a bit like Reagan sometimes being credited with bringing down the Iron Curtain (although in reality it's all much more complicated than that, his part is overstated, but it shows how people connect dots in their minds).

The US will then have a sympathy bonus in a part of the world where America is not presently popular. Especially if the US otherwise manages to keep its hands off Iran, so that any potential regime change is clearly by the will of the Iranian people and not some new puppet regime.

On the other hand, if the present government does survive, this will go into history as a bad and pointless act of aggression. So basically Trump has taken a bet on the future of Iran.

And what is the alternative?

One party offers cheap and cheerful solutions to a complex problem. The other refuses to admit the problem even exists and says those who think otherwise are morons.

Which of the two would you trust to deal with the facts in the most objective way?

The world isn't dichotomous any more.

Politics has always had a certain taint of populism. People rally behind soundbytes and emotions and not behind 1000-page treaties.

Everybody is doing it, and always has been.

If you scroll back you'll find it wasn't me who moved the goalposts.

And anyway, sometimes moving the goalposts can be about widening the view to add some perspective.

If you think the matter is too inconsequential, it's better to just not reply.

Why not just widen the goalposts?

Not sure you understood my post to be fair. As I said, it's not about "sides" it's about reality and who is going to run with the reality, whether that would get them elected and whether people prefer the comfort of simply laying the blame for the situation elsewhere.

I also didn't say it's a new thing, either. It's simply growing, or maybe we should say it's enjoying a resurgence?

As has been demonstrated by recent political events, people want quick fixes with minimal effort, maybe this has been further exacerbated by the online world of everything happening in an instant, who knows. People like Trump know how to manipulate this feeling - "It's all down to Mexicans, let's build a wall!" "Climate change was invented by the Chinese. It's a lie that will make you lose your job and you'll have to pay for it!" That kind of thing.

Anyone advocating critical thought is shouted down.

There are any at all still?

Yes, but there are still a lot of people in Iran who like the current government.


And above all, Iranians like their country (again, another similarity between the US and Iran).
If you talk to people here who are from Iran, most want to return at some point.


The current government has used this opportunity to unite the population (including the opposition) behind an anti-American propaganda-rally.


Trying to deflect internal tensions onto outside countries by starting a war is usually a trait of late-stage authoritarian dictatorships (cf. Argentina's invasion of the Falkland Islands).


In this case though, both parties are aware that neither might win an armed conflict, neither has support from the population for one - and in case of the Iranian leadership - it might not only result in the end of a political career but actually premature end of life.

There is zero doubt that the US would win any armed conflict unless other major powers such as Russia or China got involved to oppose them. In which case, hello WWIII.

Iran's army is numerous with a lot of bodies, but also comparatively low-tech and low quality compared to the USA and their military range is far more limited.

This. Here and elsewhere.

I genuinely am apathetic to what he says and gets up to. It's a US situation (not problem). If he declares war on Europe, then I'll raise an eyebrow.

If he really is that bad, he'll be gone in the next election, surely? He's had a few years to show his true colours (thats colors to you).

America is a first world, educated country with a free press/internet. Everyone gets a vote, and a billionaires vote is worth the same as a dustmans. So his political future is at the whim of the common man.
At least he has some entertainment value.

Now the situation appears to be de-esculating, it's hard not to see the past few days as a big victory for President Trump. He was able to eliminate General Soleimani without any direct repercussions. He has severely deprived Iran of her ability to carry out their proxy conflicts, whilst the unpredictable nature of the assassination means Iran (and others) will be forced to think twice about how they conduct their covert business.

No, that‘s a gross simplification. If only it were that sort of simple utopia. Voter suppression is fairly common in some areas and one can influence a great deal with money.

Oh wow, it's gonna be paradise, eih?




Okay, I'll add a just to be on the safe side.

So Trump your pathetic attempt at distraction is now over. Back to your impeachment!

Zero doubt?


How many wars (sorry, I mean "authorizations to use military force") do you think the United States has won in the last 70 years? They've been in plenty of conflicts... in how many of those has the US been successful?

Nobody wins a war. Whilst the US would almost certainly win any encounters, the whole thing would be so messy as to probably end up in a distinctly pyrrhic victory.

Again... "certainly"? Really?

Korea
Vietnam
Afghanistan
...

Any war against Iran would be an away fixture, just like the above. And after a few months, or years, or decades (just as in Afghanstan), public opinion would be so against war that the government of the day would struggle to win a high school council election.

Seems to me the US have lost every war they have started. The only time they were of any use was in the second world war.

You even quoted me old chap, "almost certainly" After all, if it all gets a bit much for them again, they might well go nuclear.