Hypocritical inaction in the face of state-sponsored terrorism A year ago, the United States assassinated Major General Qasem Soleimani in blatant violation of international law at an airport in Bagdad. This is while Gen. Soleimani was on a diplomatic mission by invitation of the Iraqi government and an official guest of the state. Maj. Gen. Soleimani’s killing was America’s gift to the terrorists in the regions. Maj. Gen. Soleimani played a key part in the unified effort against Daesh (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria and was the commander of the first forces to come to the aid of the Iraqi government after the occupation of Mosul by ISIS. This role has inspired a great deal of respect and appreciation for Soleimani in Iraq. These feelings are reflected in the Iraqi government’s initiatives honoring Soleimani in numerous occasions before his assassination and their immediate message of condolences to Iran referring to the general as a martyr after the unlawful drone strike. Maj. Gen. Soleimani’s assassination in Iraqi territory was not just a violation of international law but a clear assault on Iraqi sovereignty. This assault triggered a determined public outcry of indignation in Iraq and led to the decision of the Iraqi Council of Representatives to pass a measure calling for the expulsion of all US forces from Iraqi territory. This assassination was a clear act of state terrorism (i.e. the unlawful use of violence in pursuit of political aims). The criminality of this assassination is undisputable. In addition to being a plain violation of international law and Iraqi sovereignty, security experts argue that this move by the US government is unlawful even by the standards of US domestic law considering how any evidence to support that a general on a diplomatic mission on invitation by a government that is formally a US-ally can be an “imminent threat” to the United States is understandably difficult to produce. This is of course not the first time that Iran has been the target of US terrorism. What is unfortunate is the complacency and silence of states that claim to be committed to international law when powerful states engage in clearly terroristic acts against their less powerful victims. In other words, moral sensibilities of such states are selective. It opposes and protests state terror only if the state in question is weak enough to reckoned with.