I posted this on another forum as well, and repost it here hoping to get some insights from whoever can provide any:
The American assassination of an Iranian general has caused quite a bit of noise in the media.
Now I don’t want to rehash all the standard anti-American rhetoric. I accept that some governments will ruthlessly do whatever they perceive to be in their own interest, or in the interest of their nation. That is simple reality, and America is by no means the only nation guilty of this sort of cynicism.
But here’s the thing I don’t get: when it comes to all these wars, what is the perceived benefit? It seems rather obvious that thus far there hasn’t really been any benefit in practice, but what is it that successive American administrations think is going to be the benefit? Or has someone in fact benefited? Who, and how?
Any of our well informed members here with any ideas? I am completely mystified, because the whole thing seems utterly irrational to me. What is the cost-vs-benefit analysis here? Is there one?
As I hint at above, what bothers me here is not the evil of it (or, for that matter, the good, for those who think such actions are a good thing). I accept that people do evil. But lots of very evil people nevertheless acted quite rationally; Stalin comes to mind, or even Reinhard Heydrich - they had a particular goal, and acted in ways that would get them there at the least cost and risk. One may be appalled at what they did, but it is not difficult to see the logic in their actions.
When it comes to America’s wars of aggression, I simply cannot work out what the point is. What is it that the government thinks it is achieving, or going to achieve?