Unrelated. Engine problems shortly after takeoff.

Personally, f*** the leaders of Iran.

"Why are homosexuals executed in Iran because of their sexual orientation?"

"Our society has moral principles. And we live according to these principles. These are moral principles concerning the behavior of people in general. And that means that the law is respected and the law is obeyed,"

Imagine getting the death sentence for loving someone.

I'm not sure why there's so much fuzz about this. The US embassy in Irak was attacked by a paramiliatary millitia backed by Iran, the US stroke against the man who organized it. What is Iran going to realistically do? Declare war on the US and get immediately swarmed and invaded? Attack one of the many american bases around Iran and get invaded? Fund even more terrorism and give the US a casus belli to invade them? Call its allies for help? China would rather keep good relations with the US to mantain the economy flow going, I'm not sure Russia would take the risk of helping Iran outside of diplomacy and maybe help through secret services, and the rest of its allies are almost a non entity. Iran cannot do anything without risking itself, so unless they went full kamikaze, they'll choose self-preservation over any major retaliation and things will slow down from here.

And yes, I know there's been an atack with iranian ballistic missiles to US bases, but all missed its targets and there were no casualties (allegedly), which makes me think this was just an empty threat to save face.

Have you not been paying attention?

The US literally assassinated a high ranking Iranian Official and has threatened terrorist attacks on 52 civilian targets in Iran.

I know, but all the cries for World War III coming are unwarranted. At best, this is just another showoff between nations, and at worse, we'll have another Gulf War. Tragic, but nothing world shattering. Also, calling terrorist attacks to the threats made to the iranian objectives is not correct, since they would be military objectives in case of war, not just part of a terror or guerrilla campaign. And this is in response to the attack to the US air bases, so it's not like it was unwarranted.

Of all the topics discussed in this forum, this in bold is the most relevant statement I've ever read. You my friend nailed the issue at the core of all issues. And I know your point is kind of rhetorical but allow me to venture a reply:

Because of human culture (or ignorance, very often the same thing) producing religion, politics and other such forces that end up deciding for you what's right and what's wrong and woe betides you if "they" decide you are on the wrong side of their beliefs or convictions.

Look at the bright side my friend, your community has made leaps and bounds in terms of rights despite so many still hating you because of their ignorant moral beliefs. Other communities are not so lucky...

I'll say no more cause I don't want to be accused of going off-topic. This is a once only reply to a post in this thread.

Read your own post you say this man has been organizing attacks against US right? Then why hasn't the US already invaded then like long before? Maybe because of two possible reasons one could be the claim about him doing all of what ever is BS or two it's not as easy a fight as some people think the same way Afghanistan is still giving the US grief 18 years on, they had to wait for the General to be in another country to strike at him. You asked what Iran could do well UK asked that years back and had their oil tankers siezed because all tankers have to pass through Iran's region the weren't any military action against them back then either which says something when it comes to picking a fight with them to the point even Israel who support the action have declared they want no part of any conflict with Iran.

Here’s an informative video from an Iranian-American woman.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1C888mSyD7s

Why hasn't the US invaded before? Why would they? The US doesn't need to invade a country to fight terrorism. They didn't need to invade Pakistan to hunt down Bin Laden, and likewise, the fact that terrorism continued after Irak and Afganistan meant that invading is not an universal, nor foolproof, solution. Measured use of force is needed in both diplomacy and military affairs. Solemini was a terrorist whose criminal acts could be traced back years ago (the attack of the israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992 comes to mind, though there might be earlier attacks). The US had recognized his involvement in aiding local terrorist cells in Irak, and it was in a position to get to him within allied territory. This situation didn't need an invasion. If by taking down the terrorist you ended one of the most prominent heads of terrorism in the area and you sent a message to Iran (who had started this whole affair with the attack to the embassy in Irak), why would you choose an invasion that would cost so much in lives, money and national and international image?