After the assassination of Soleimani, if you scrolled down your Facebook feed and read comments on articles on the drone strike, you saw polarizing comments: conservatives supported Soleimani’s death and liberals branding the move as irrepsonsible. I am not here to take the liberal or conservative viewpoint; the issue is not partisan. Instead, I want to highlight the broader danger of the nature of  these Facebook comments that are based on little to no true understanding of this crisis. 

    Soleimani was definitely a threat to US interests, but the Trump could have executed the assassination in a different fashion to minimize the blowback and ensure deniability. The anonymity would mean less pressure for Iranian government to retaliate accordingly 

    On the other hand, if Soleimani was such an imminent threat, why was the operation carried out seven months after it was approved. The American military has many threats to counter; the government should assign resources and time to those higher priority threats (ie. current DPRK efforts to build long-range ballistic missiles and the growing threat of the Wuhan coronavirus). But they don’t. And, there is no public pressure because no one in the media talks about the substance and strategy.  

    The reason for the lack of in-depth analysis is because of how we consume and analyze news. In the 1990s and 2000s, media companies used the public’s attitude to make profits off cable news. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. used soundbites, punditry, and spin to get audiences addicted to headlines that are full of hot air. Now, as more Amercans get their news from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc., the problem has only escalated.  A study showed that on average, Americans read an article for 15 seconds. How are you supposed to understand a complex situation like Iran in only 15 seconds? You can’t. 

The reason people don’t comprehend societal issues is because we don’t pay attention. We don’t stop, read, think, and question. Social media companies have co-opted this systematic behavior. We have become accustomed to ease and comfortability relying on Amazon Prime and instant messaging. I understand why some people see this “laziness”as necessary. Studies have shown it can be efficient for daily tasks such as paying your bills, catching the bus, or figuring out the tip.

However, some situations require more contemplation. Complex issues like the United States’ relationship with Iran, the presidential election, and health care policies. I bet that the average reader of the Daily Journal does not go to the San Mateo Library and check out a book on the past history between the US and Iran. Of course, there is no need to go that extreme. At least, they can know the who, what, where and why. Unfortunately, that even seems to be unlikely: most Americans cannot even identify Iran on a map according to a survey conducted by Morning Consult. The market research company found that only 23% of respondents accurately identified Iran on a map. 

You may think, “Why should I care? It does not affect me.” But if you stop and think, it does. A war with Iran would mean the closing of the Strait of Hormuz. 30 percent of sea traded oil goes through this passageway. The volatility and the closing the strait would send oil prices skyrocketing, and those inflated prices would translate to an American gas station. So if you want to protect your interests at the ballot box, you should do your duty and due diligence by doing your research. Then you can post your Facebook comment.