Ayatollah Ali Khameini. In many ways, higher than most government officials.

A decorated veteran of the Iran-Iraq War, he was beloved by nearly all Iranians. Unlike the mullahs.

Government and then a shadow govt that works on their dirty tricks operations. But I think the two are in communication with each other. Can we compare this to the nonofficial people Trump uses...the 3 Mar-a-lago members who were running the V.A., Giuliani, the people like ivanka and Jared who've not had to be confirmed by the Senate and can't get a security clearance? They're "official," but who knows what all they get up to when they meet with people, especially foreigners. Eric Prince talked to Trump about creating an alternative, shadow intelligence operation.

I hope they appreciate all Ditzy Donnie has done for them.

And I hope it causes a natural but self-induced apoplexy... after stewing over it for a sufficiently miserably long-ass time.

This probably isn't a perfect comparison, but if you combined the responsibilities of the Chairman of the Joint chiefs of staff, the head of Central Command and the head of Special Operations Command in one person and made them report to the Pope, that's what Qassem Soleimani essentially was. And pope gets to decide who can or cannot run for President, for Senate, or for House.

European parliamentary systems is not necessary. Just ask/learn what the Iranian system is like, and that will show what Soleimani's position/importance is in their context.

As for the question about the USA's cabinet officials and their danger... absolutely yes -- with the caveat that there is probably an upper limit on the Iranian's willingness to escalate simply based on US nuclear weapon delivery capability (which they cannot match at the moment) and Trump's absolute inability to refrain from one-upping. That is NOT a reassuring limit, btw. Much badness lies between the present moment and that limit, possibly including assassination attempts against cabinet officials.

And if I were an Iranian official charged with brain-storming striking back, I would go after Trump's bugaboos rather than US strategic interests/institutions because there's more bang for the buck. As a purely hypothetical example, attacking a Trump-branded hotel somewhere outside the US gives a them a domestic propaganda "win" as hitting back, but does not motivate the opposition party (Dems) to line up alongside the ruling party (Repukes) against outside threats the way that killing a cabinet secretary would -- AND probably bothers Trump MORE because of his ravenous and frail ego.

And keep in mind that the Iranians will be playing a long game compared to Trump. Once Trump is out of office, his kids and Trump-owned (rather than just Trump-branded) properties outside the US will fall much more into the "not US strategic interests/institutions" than they do at this moment when their father/owner is actually occupying the office of POTUS.

Maybe, MAYBE, Iranian actors will differentiate between the next administration's cabinet officials and Trump's, but probably not. Which sucks majorly. In all likelihood, they will simply bide their time looking for sufficiently soft targets and circumstances when the ability of the US to strike back is diminished, and act then. Thanks, Dotard!

... US resources to protect his shit.

I wonder if Iran is that sane, they would only have to talk about attacking his branded properties at first ... that in and of itself would hurt him bad.