An unjustly targeted killing of the Iranian Major General Qassem Suleimani by the US drone attack inside Iraq has triggered a dramatic escalation in the confrontation between the U.S. and Iran. As for Iran, theU.S. killing of QassemSoleimani, Iran’s most powerful figure after its supreme leader, is rightly seen as an act of war crimethat risks regional conflagration. ” A chain reaction will be dexterous for the peace in a volatile ME region…”This is not the end of it. The direct assassination of Suleimani by the United States is a naked challenge”,said MohanadHage Ali, a fellow at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut. Nonetheless, a neutral analysis suggests that an escalation between Washington and Iran is dangerous for regional peace stemming from the twin conflict scenario wherein Tehran would have tensions with both Washington and Tel Aviv. The targeting of Suleimani has created one of the most dramatic flashpoints since the Iraq War and could have a profound impact on the regional tapestry of allegiances, particularly in Iraq, which has sought to balance Washington and Tehran. “Reckless” a dangerous escalation,” and “severe revenge” are just a few of the words coming from international leaders and politicians in the wake of the U.S. killing of Maj General QasemSoleimani, Iran’s top military commander of the Islamic Republic. The world has little evidence that killing a member of the Iranian government was necessary for basic American self-defense; Iran’s compliance and behavior under the 2015 nuclear treaty and evidence of limited cooperation between the U.S. and Soleimani to combat the Taliban and ISIS suggest that Gen Suleimani and his government did not threaten the US interests intrinsically The United States has had been targeting Gen QasemSulaimani for decades. As per the US charge sheet, Suleimani was the face of Iran’s military interventions overseas and what the U.S. government describes as Iran’s “malign activity in the Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and Shiite militias in Iraq. The strike also killed Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, whose men are accused of recent attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq. This could have created two problems: first, because his militia is likely to escalate attacks on the U.S., which might keep the conflict-active and threatening to spread further. And secondly, by making a deliberate attack on Iraq soil against specific human targets rather than military bases, Baghdad seems furious of creating difficulties for Washington. Seen factually, Gen Soleimani was the architect of Iran’s regional policy of mobilizing militias across Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, including in the war against the IS. Gen Suleimani in the rare interview, reportedly the first ever given by Suleimani in more than 20 years, the bold and elusive commander outlined the regional landscape leading up to the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War. This was a daunting world for Suleimani, who has had long been responsible for Iran’s regional policies, with hundreds of thousands of U.S. and Western troops encircling Iran and deep convergence between the interests of the United States, Israel, and leading EU and the GCC’s Arab powers. Suleimani discussed the then-unfavourable geopolitical environment, describing it as a “threat to the Syrian government” and a “threat to Iran. The Iraqi Parliament has cancelled its security pact with the US and ordered the foreign forces to leave Iraq; yet Washington rejected the Iraqi demand. Both Russia and Iran say they are intervening to stand up to American meddling and to stabilize the region. US Senator Brian Schatz has urged scepticism and “toughest oversight” as the Trump administration ramps up military operations in the Middle East, including the deployment of more troops to Iraq following the death of Iranian military commander QassemSuleimani. “They have lied about almost everything. There is no reason to suddenly give them the benefit of the doubt because they took a precipitous military action. Instead, our deepest scepticism, our toughest oversight, our most probing questions, must come now,” Schatz wrote on social media.” Douglas Silliman said diplomats, business people, and NGO workers in the Middle East are vulnerable to Iranian retaliation after QassemSuleimani’s killing.And yet, there appears no doubt that President Trump’s decision to kill Gen Sueilamani tactically has scrambled the politics of impeachment, thereby putting Democrats on the defensive in their bid to remove Trump during a possible escalation into war. And yet notably, Israel has long used the tactic of undeclared air raids in Syria in what is known as its “war between wars,” a campaign it claims is waged to reduce the capacity of its rivals ahead of any future war. After pioneering the tactic in a 2007 strike on a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor, it expanded its use on a wide scale, delivering some 800 bombs against 200 targets across the country in 2017-2018, as Iran increased its presence in Syria through its Quds Force, Lebanese ally Hezbollah and other proxies. Israel was not comfortable with the Iranian influence over Gaza via Hezbollah militia. Washington has implied that killing Suleimani was self-defense, as he helped plan, or may have been planning, deadly acts against American citizens in the Middle East. Yet conversely to the Washington claims, the use of force in international law has to take account of issues of necessity, immediacy and proportionality. Whereas, the world has little evidence that killing a member of the Iranian government was necessary for basic American self-defense; Iran’s compliance and behavior under the 2015 nuclear treaty and evidence of limited cooperation between the U.S. and Soleimani to combat the Taliban and ISIS suggest that Gen Suleimani and his government did not threaten the US interests intrinsically. Yet horrendously, if the US or Israel decided to take military action against Iran , this could pave the way for a prompt Iranian retaliation against the United States’ Gulf allies, an attack by Hezbollah on Israel, or a Shiite militia operation against the American personnel in Iraq. Similarly, Israeli operations against Iranian allies anywhere in the Mideast could cause a region wide chain reaction. Nonetheless, given the US’ revoking of the nuclear deal (which Iran appeared to be respecting) and its act of war in killing Suleimani, the Iranian missile attacks seem a measured – even minimalist – justified response. Illegal acts of war could enrage an opponent while cementing its determination. Iranians of all stripes have come together to making remonstrance to Suleimani’s killing. Veritably, when one country violates international law, other nations often get upset. The system of international law requires mutual collaboration and trust. Some in the U.S. act as if only naked might matters in foreign policy. Trump’s foreign-policy dilettantism – exclusively his use of offensive and aggressive designs to mask his lack of plausible options and strategy- seems to have played a crucial role in creating the current chaos. His provocative decision– to kill Iran’s hero Gen Suleimani seems strategically a sign of aggressive realism after his unwise withdrawal of the Iran nuclear deal– will be proven to be the height of tomfoolery.One could justifiably argue that as for the question of moral responsibility and American national interest, refraining from unnecessary humanitarian military intervention is a sine qua non for American foreign policy or its national interest. The writer is an independent ‘IR’ researcher and international law analyst based in Pakistan