So I might of heard wrong, but wasn't the dude and his men planning to take down some officials? or some other important people? this is he said she said, pretty sure I heard it from my sister, but I thought it was just whoever shot first situation(e;i both sides were planning to kill someone, just one side got to it before the other side)
This would be an ambiguous thing even for a neutral government. With this one, you know in advance they're going to lie if it happens not to be true. And even if it's partially true, you can predict Trump waving some documents and repeating some stupid mantra every chance he gets (I can almost hear him "We've taken out Soleimani...who was a bad man...a very bad man...because he was planning to kill <person/group>. Here are documents showcasing exactly that. Therefore, I've managed to save <person/group>. I brought peace. I...<and so on>").
...but that's just a hypothesis based on earlier events. The absence of stupid Trump wannabe-hypnosis isn't proof that it's a lie. For that, it's better to use Occam's razor and ask what's more likely.
Soleimani has been an enemy of the US for many years (again: even W. Bush was given the "comedy last option" to take him out...so he's been on a watchlist for at least ten years now). If Trump really is about bringing peace, Soleimani should have less inclination than ever to plan something evil, let alone execute that something, right? So...that already tells us Trump isn't about bringing peace foremost (not much of a surprise, there).
Next up: does he has more reason to plot an action? Answer...yes. That one-sided cancellation of the nuclear agreement by
Trump the USA and increased sanctions against Iran isn't going to make him happy.
But again: what would be his most effective move? Would that be A) sabotaging the oil production lines from the shadows, thus thwarting the global oil industry...or B) killing Americans, thus ensuring that both the USA is pissed off at them as well as losing any potential allies it might have or hope to get in the rest of the world ?
Occam's razor says he's far more likely to be the one either behind those earlier sabotage acts, or otherwise planning them than actually planning to provoke killing US citizens.
IDK if this was an election stunt, I'm probably too Naive right now, but wouldn't there be other things to do for re-election?
For a normal president: absolutely. But this is a guy that broke most if not all of his campaign promises (hint: Mexico hasn't payed for a wall), needlessly brought an economic war with China, distanced or downright insulted all sorts of allies both within and outside the country, has the longest government downtime in recent history, is part of so many scandals that actually solving them is still on the 'to do' list (note: it might be up for debate whether or not Trump ordered it, but it remains a FACT that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections. But that is hardly if at all addressed) and is actually impeached and on the verge of being removed from office.
Sorry, but you don't recover from this sort of negative publicity (heck...even Nixon was more popular when he resigned). At least not by normal standards.
At this point, many will point out the cult-movie 'Wag the dog', wherein a couple spin doctors fabricate a fictional war to deflect the attention from a sexual scandal the president's involved in. They do it so masterfully that at the end, the guy gets re-elected.
The thing is: while believable and would something many see Trump consider, I think he's just too dumb for this sort of Machiavellian play. Or rather: he's surrounded himself with yes-men rather than people smart enough to properly cook up something like this.
hell you guys don't live near 5 freaking bases within a 15 mile radius prime target for iran
Erm...as someone who only knows USA from movies and numbers on military spending...doesn't the USA have at least one military base about every 5 miles?