Analysis of the jurisprudential-legal title of the action of the United States in martyring General Soleimani and the feasibility of criminal prosecution in domestic courts (with an emphasis on passive personal jurisdiction)

Today, the countries supporting terrorism have been able to organize and implement their actions wherever they want, using modern technology and equipment. Examining terrorism and jurisprudential titles related to this term, along with their constituent elements, provides the means to compare these criminal behaviors. A comparison that, by identifying the commonalities and differences of these titles, can evaluate the method adopted in dealing with the action of the United States of America in martyring Sardar Soleimani. The questions that the current research is meant to answer are: From a jurisprudential-legal point of view, what criminal title applies to the action of the United States in relation to this crime? What does terrorism have to do with intentional murder? Which method (proceeding in domestic or international courts) is suitable for the legal case of assassination of Martyr Soleimani? The findings of the research show that despite the absence of a legal pillar of the phenomenon of terrorism in the domestic laws, if this behavior leads to intentional murder, it is unimpeded to impose punishment, including retribution, ransom, and general aspects, on the perpetrators by the domestic courts of the capital. which is discussed in this article with the method of descriptive-analytical study.