The killing of the well-known commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Al-Quds Brigade, Sulaymani, by a successful air strike by the United States, became the first international spotlight in 2020, because it affected or far exceeded expectations: trouble could just start in an already chaotic Middle East.
\"Iran has never won a war, but has never lost a negotiation,\" US President Donald Trump tweeted triumphantly. Using the momentum to kill mr suleimani, he made a negotiating plea to iran, which is simple: the united states is so strong that iran would not dare to resort to any drastic means of protection, and if it did not accept the negotiations, the u.s. would continue to use such targeted measures to weaken iran until iran concedes defeat.
Clearly, Trump believes he has set an unbreakable trap for Iran: losing everything in negotiations or everything in airstrikes. But there's only one question, will things really go the way he wants them to?
Obviously, for Iran, direct surrender and serious defeat are two completely different concepts, and Trump's negotiating demands, in Iran's view and persuasion, are no different, and under the pressure of America's limits, Iran's losses are not small, surrender will be nothing, and it will be abandoned entirely by the people – indeed, this US air strike has brought the United States and Iran together into a prisoner's dilemma: either lose or win.
Immediately after US forces killed Suleimani, Iran announced that it would \"exact revenge,\" not a false threat, but a final warning from the United States to the last corner, and that Iran's retaliation may well not be confined to Iraq, but also in Syria, and possibly even, along with regional allies of the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The israeli army is on top alert, after all, and the tension between the u.s. and iran is rooted in israel itself, using false intelligence to convince mr. trump to repeal the iranian nuclear deal and restart full-scale sanctions against iran as a target of retaliation.
Such a situation would not be good for the United States, which would mean that the Middle East would once again become a more chaotic quagmire, in which the US military would become more and more deeply involved, in total contradiction to Trump's previous commitments, and that once the US military was in a quagmire no less than that of Iraq, the US military would not want to see it.
It is clear that the u. s.air strike in baghdad not only does not remove iran's influence over the iraqi government, but it could provoke a greater antipathy, and if the u. s.military operation is very successful militarily, it could be a major political mistake.
Force has actually never really solved any problem, but only to cover up the problem, the difference is only “cover up ” degree is only different, Suleimani's death is likely to become an important inflection point of the situation in the Middle East, if not until then, the United States want to withdraw? Think of Afghanistan!