There is no doubt that the Iranians and Americans do not want war, but both consider that the other party has crossed the red lines and deserved a blow that will deter them. American logic makes it necessary to respond to the both strike one is the embassy attack and before it the killing of the contractor in Kirkuk, but the exaggeration in targeting the first man Iranian military is sudden and unexpected, because the assassination of a high-value person such as Soleimani doesnt exceed the seriousness than that of the Supreme Leader Sayed Ali Khamenei.
Based on the foregoing, the Iranians may be unwilling to start a war, but they are obliged to respond to the assassination of their most prominent security and military symbol with an act similar to its magnitude.
The Americans may also be not interested in an "all-out war", but they will be drawn into it because they wont bear the expected Iranian response, so the possibility of an "all-out" war between the two countries is no longer excluded.
They are hours and may not exceed days until the world discovers the magnitude and extent of war.
In logic-based expectations, not information, we can also say that the American has crossed all red lines, and therefore Iran and its allies will also drop all red lines, but will this lead to "all-out war"? The decision-making is pursuant to Washington.
There are a number of possibilities for the Iranian response:
Storming the American embassy in Baghdad and causing losses to the forces that protect it, responding from inside Iraq also to the bases of the occupation in a way that would cause great losses to the American forces, the response from Lebanon to Israel and making the Zionists pay the penalty of the assassination of Soleimani and thus keeping Iran away from the destructive American responses, the response from Yemen to Gulf oil installations in a way that ache the Americans, or going towards an all-out Iraqi rebellion to get the American occupying forces out of Iraq by force of fire; this is the most probable possibility if Tehran isnt willing to embark an "all-out war".
So which of these scenarios is definite?
This appears in the knowledge of the ruling Iranian establishment and the knowledge of its opponents in Washington.
Would it be possible to believe the American wishes, so that Iran would not go into a huge response, fearing war?
Answering to that, we can say that if the Iranian was afraid to respond, he would not have shot down the famous American plane and would not have allowed his allies to obtain through him military technology that enabled them to strike Aramco installations.
Now, Iran has been subjected to a significant moral blow, and its dignity has dropped at the gates of the American aggression in Baghdad, and therefore the Iranian response must be inevitable and major. The question is, will Washington swallow the pain of the response, or will it enter the war that its president keeps repeating that he doesnt want it?