Some people believe that iraq should be right to attack U.S military base in Iraq and others deny that. Discuss about two opions

The wreckage of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani’s vehicle was still cooling on a Baghdad access road Friday when the recriminations against President Donald Trump’s assassination of Iran’s powerful Quds Force leader began. Foremost among them: The U. S. has triggered Iran to stage attacks on America’s troops, embassies, friends and infrastructure in the Middle East and around the world. As if Iran wasn’t already. The critique is based on the serious miscalculation that the U. S. had little to gain by taking out Soleimani and that the consequences would be worse than what he and the regime were already doing. The reality is the opposite, and the public should welcome the fact that their leaders are taking bolder action to protect them from Iranian mayhem. Whether most Americans knew it or not, Soleimani was already waging a shadow war with the West and its regional partners. At his direction, Iran built and supplied highly sophisticated explosive devices to militias targeting U. S. troops in Iraq, killing at least 500 American service members, wounding many more, and making up nearly 20 percent of combat deaths in the country in the early years of the war. When the Pentagon noted after his death that Soleimani “was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq” it was easy to believe. He’d already done it. Whatever danger Soleimani’s death might bring, danger was already present in lethal doses, and not just for Americans. Soleimani intervened to salvage the Syrian civil warfor President Bashar al-Assad, organizing more than 100, 000 fighters to prop up the crumbling, corrupt regime and planning the infamous campaign to retake the city of Aleppo from Syrian rebels in 2016. That seige redefined carnagein the modern era, while the civil war overall sent thousands of refugees fleeing to Europe.