🟠 An analysis of the US crime in assassinating General Soleimani in Baghdad International Airport


An analysis of the US crime in assassinating General Soleimani in Baghdad International Airport
Following the 9/11 attacks, the then US administration unjustly accused the entire Muslim world of committing the horrible attacks, thus giving Washington a perfect excuse to consider a vicious agenda based on terrorism and Islamophobia in the West Asia region.
Under the empty pretext of combating terrorism, the US army launched a full-scale invasion against Afghanistan, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, among them women, children, and elderly civilians.
It was not so long before wreaking havoc in Afghanistan and destroying its few remaining infrastructures, that Americans launched yet another devastating onslaught against the Iraqi nation in 2003, presumably to bring them American-made democracy. But they only begot on Iraqis greater calamity, poverty, and ultimately ISIS. And the good American politician did not forget to establish military bases across the Middle-East, of course, to combat the very same ISIS terrorists whom they helped and financed.
The United States has arbitrarily treated the term “terrorism” and even created for it a new political genre and discourse as a means to expand its malicious hegemonic goals in West Asia. There is a myriad of historical evidence demonstrating that the state-sustained terrorism by the consecutive White House administrations is not an unprecedented phenomenon at all. The callous assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientists– in which Mossad and the CIA spy agencies were certainly implicated– can be remarked as outstanding acts of the US state-sponsored terrorism.
In the case of the outrageous assassination of General Haj Qassem Soleimani, Abu Mahdi Al-Mohandes and their entourage–ordered by the incumbent president Trump–; the Americans evinced that they can resort to their age-long habit of state terrorism at any moment.
According to the Charter of the United Nations, it is acceptable that countries can defend themselves only in two conditions, A) if a state constitutes a threat to international peace and security, B) When a country poses an imminent threat to the stability and security of another nation. Trump made use of the second condition as an excuse to order the assassination in Baghdad, General Soleimani. But this spurious argument was so questionable that he even couldn’t convince the US House of Representatives.
To justify his heinous crime, Trump failed to provide any substantial evidence that the American interests were attacked or under
Agnès Callamard, the UN Special Human Rapporteur concurred with the abovementioned agreement that US flagrant assault on an Iranian citizen in Jan. 2020, was an utter violation of the International Law.
In terms of provisions in the International Human Rights Law, the right of life is considered an incontestable fact, and its violation constitutes a clear contravention violation of the international rule of law.
Major General Soleimani traveled to Baghdad on a state visit extended by the Iraqi Prime Minister. Besides, Martyr Soleimani’s mission was only to convey a message of peace, not war. Also, there is no evidence indicating that General Soleimani or his entourage intended to carry out any military operations.
It is a well-known fact that the government officials in missions abroad are supposed to enjoy diplomatic immunity. But, the coward assassination of Iranian officials in Baghdad, as personalities carrying diplomatic passports, was a blatant violation of the New York Convention of 1974.
Given the security agreement signed between Iraq and the United States, the US military personnel in Iraq have the right to wear military uniforms and carry weapons. But the right to conduct military operations is solely contingent on the permission of the Iraqi government. So it is obvious the General Soleimani’s assassination constitutes a violation of the US-Iraqi security deal.

Following the terrorist attack targeting General Soleimani and his comrades, the pressing need to address to the International Courts was raised, but we all know that after the end of World War II, the countries, like the US, that won the global conflict had been very influential in drafting the post-war international law and created various mechanisms to thwart any threat to their interests, namely the right of Veto.
To the detriment of other nations, the United States of America, in the 20th and 21st centuries have repeatedly breached different international regulations. But as these international regulations are considered non-binding regarding issues such as Human Rights, nations’ independence, and territorial integrity, the terrorist and rogue countries such as the US deem themselves unpunishable to infringe the international law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

WC Captcha − three = one