this article makes sense to me as explanation for Soleimani assassination. It says that it was advocated by neocons Bolton, Pompeo (and earlier McMaster) as part of "maximum pressure", but declined by Trump earlier this year unless "red line" of killing American crossed.
2/ such "red lines" are a recipe for false flags and opportunism (as we've seen with the veritable industry of false flag chemical attacks in Syria designed by jihadis to get US to weaken Syrian govt). Trump's red line would be catnip for Washington neocons, and temptation
3/ irresistible temptation to neocons to firmly attribute the death of US contractor at K1 base near Kirkuk to Soleimani, whereas actual evidence permitting attribution is scanty, and, if anything, points to ISIS remnants known to be operating at the time near Kirkuk or
4/ some other undirected opposition activity. Hard to understand why Shia militias (who are now incorporated as brigades in the Iraqi armed forces) would fire rockets on an Iraqi base killing Iraqi soldiers in addition to US contractor, but easy to understand if ISIS remnant.
5/ but, with Trump's "red line" in view, it's now easy to understand how Trump's neocon advisers would over-egg and misrepresent incident in exactly the way that would trigger Trump's red line. Thus, the murder of Iraqi soldiers fighting ISIS in western Anbar - who they portrayed
6/ to Trump as "Iran-backed militias", undoubtedly concealing from Trump that they were brigades in Iraqi armed forces fighting ISIS, and the follow-up murder of Soleimani when he traveled to Baghdad for their funeral.
7/ these seemingly inexplicable actions make more "sense" when viewed through the prism of Trump's neocon advisers manipulating events to trigger Trump's red line.
