Here's what I think may actually be going on with Iran. amirite?
It seems to be generally acknowledged that Iran was behind the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad. Why then would they send their top general, the second most powerful man in Iran, into Baghdad immediately afterwards virtually unprotected? Seems like a rather dangerous move, doesn't it? Did they think America would just sit back and let him rally the forces attacking them?
Well here's the subtext you probably haven't been given.
According to Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...anian_protests ) there have been anti-government protests in Iran lately which verge on civil war, not only have the protests been violent and widespread, the government has responded by "according to Amnesty international, shooting protesters dead from rooftops, helicopters, and at close range with machine gun fire." "The government killed 1,500 Iranian citizens."
"The government crackdown prompted a violent reaction from protesters who destroyed 731 government banks including Iran's central bank, nine Islamic religious centres, tore down anti-American billboards, and posters and statues of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. 50 government military bases were also attacked by protesters."
If Iran's leader was afraid he's about to be toppled, it would make sense that he'd want to get rid of the man best positioned to take him out - his top general, the second most powerful man in Iran. He could get the army to shoot protesters, but not to shoot generals, so he set the stage for the US to do it for him. Not only did this get rid of the man most likely to replace him, it gave the Iranian people an outside bogeyman to focus on and a reason to rally around their government.
Now, if you want to get into 4d chess, it's possible the US already tried to turn General Soleimani, but found him to be loyal to Ali Khamenei. As such, by taking the bait and getting rid of Soleimani for Khamenei, they forced Iran to put someone else in his position who may not be as loyal.