You’re first making the assumption that the US isn’t guiding its proxies to attack Iranian assets, which in itself is a leap of logic that probably won’t stand up.
No, I haven't made that assumption. But again the focus of its operations was originally the uprising in Syria and fighting ISIS, now it seems that Trump's been persuaded by Russia, Turkey to... well I mean we don't need to get diverted - you've read the news.
Were also discussing perceived justification here. This is not whether you or I think it’s right or wrong, but the justification each side is using to attack the other.
I was commenting on actual justifications here and what I think is right or wrong, I think you're discussing something else in that case - I mean if we get into perceptions then well the US is the great satan etc..etc..
Going back to the discussion about Iran hating the west. The politics is extremely complex in Iran. It has two very different sides, with the moderates trying to bring Iran back into the fold, and the hardliners trying to sabotage it. The moderates were the cause of the Nuclear deal, the hardliners are the cause of the attacks. The actions of Trump over the last couple of years have played directly into the Hardliners hands, and the assassination of an Iranian general is just the icing on the cake for them. They can now claim (somewhat legitimately) that Iran held out an olive leaf to the US, and now not only did the US (Trump) rip it up, he’s now “murdered” the messenger.
"somewhat legitimately" - that's a dubious take, if anything the West has been rather restrained for years with regards to Iran in comparison to their actions in the region, we've gone for sanctions and condemnation... not much of a response to the attacks on shipping, random missile attacks on Saudi oil facilities and multiple attacks from proxies over the years.
This again just seem to boil down to a more wordy and slightly more detailed version of - Foxeye's "oh the west has done stuff too" while the argument relies on conflating things of a rather different scale, different motivation and under rather different values.
Iran needs to change some of its leadership, but it needs to do so on its own terms. These actions are just legitimizing and solidifying the support for the hardliners. Obama and his administration understood this, Trump doesn’t seem to. That or Netanyahu and Saudi got him to do their bidding - both were against the nuclear deal from the start, because it brought Iran in from the cold and damaged their political aims in the region.
On the other hand - allowing them to go unchecked for so long hasn't helped much. Trump's move clearly rattled them and despite all the bluster they wanted an exit, balancing their domestic worries against not wanting to get their ass kicked by a US now prepared to respond directly to the shenanigans they've been pulling off for years. Trumps gambit might well pay off here re: the actual issue it was in response to - proxy attacks by Iran on coalition forces/US in Iraq.