A Few Clarifications to Cut Through the Confusing Media Clamor: · 1:57pm Jan 6th, 2020
First, the "attack" on the U.S. embassy in Iraq was what, in any other country or against any other target, would be called a "riot". There were rocks thrown at buildings, a few broken doors, and a single instance of arson. What there was not, was any use of guns, bombs, or grenades. What there was not, was any injury reported. It was, for all appearances, a spontaneous mob, and they did spontaneous mob things; namely spraying graffiti. Yes, Donald Trump decided that the proper response to graffiti was a military strike against a foreign political leader.
Second, and this will become increasingly important in the coming days: Initial claims had it that Soleimani, the guy who was assassinated, was in Iraq to plot unspecified attacks against U.S. troops. According to the president of Iraq, Soleimani was actually there to meet with him, later that very day, to discuss peace talks between Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. So this was an attack on a diplomatic mission, of which one party was (pretty much past tense at this point) an ally of the United States.
Third, the WWIII thing is admittedly an impulsive reaction, not a logical one; Iran doesn't exactly have the international web of allegiances necessary to spark military repercussions beyond the Middle East, and Iraq is more peeved than they are actually calling for war (at the moment). But that's not really saying much: A war with Iran is still a major event that's not to be taken lightly, and "it's not going to be WWIII" should not be treated as a diminishing of the seriousness of this situation.
Summary: The United States, in response to a riot where the worst thing that was thrown was a rock and where there were no reported injuries, carried out a fatal attack, without permission, on the sovereign soil of an ally (Iraq), against a political leader on a formal diplomatic mission to speak with U.S. allies (Iraq, Saudi Arabia) about peace. At this point it's becoming a bit cliche, but this event alone is enough to justify an entire impeachment trial against Trump, and potentially an invocation of the 25th Amendment.
Unfortunately, more likely this geopolitical stunt will be what saves him.
5180969
That starting a war is largely correlated with getting reelected does not imply that someone will get reelected just from starting a war. Reality is a lot more complicated than that, and simple truisms are generally counterproductive to understanding what's actually going on.
5180998
I decided to be brief because I didn't feel like having another headache from another drawn out discussion about the possible consequences about the assassination of an Iranian official in an Iraqi airport; compounded with the quagmire that is American involvement with a region that has had decades of strife and conflict due to outside interference and local insurgencies.
My only intention in my response was to convey my belief that US President Trump will use this ultimately as a broad rallying call to further cement his takeover of the Republican Party; having effectively morphed it into a cult of personality around himself.
5181147
He'll try, but I think people are more wary of yet another war in the Middle East than you think; I think there's a good chance it could do the opposite. Many people voted for Trump because he claimed that he was the peacekeeper and Hillary was the warmonger, and even the Republicans in the Senate are going to be hesitant to start another costly military engagement. The administration's messaging in the last few days can be summed up as "this is business as usual, Trump doesn't want to start a war"; if it becomes increasingly clear that Trump does want to start a war, I can see this going bad for him really fast.