Defining Proportional
Two-Star For Two-Star
We Killed A Major General. You Kill A Major General.
Will Proxies Complicate A U.S. Response
Bible Or Quran: Eye-For-An-Eye?

Can Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran and H.E. Hassan Rouhani, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, convince a population of 84 million (and supporters in other countries) that destroying structures, aircraft, runways, at United States military installations, but not killing anyone- including a Major General, the Iranian state and the Iranian people would have been avenged? Would the family of Major General Qassim Suleimani received promised justice?

Iran has shared that it’s response will focus upon representations of the United States military- at “military sites.”

However the description- killed, murdered, executed, assassinated, martyred, General Suleimani is dead.  Will Iran respond- one-for-one; an expression which does damage but results in no deaths; multiple deaths?  Iran’s goal is to rid the Middle East of the presence of the United States- commercial, economic, political and military, so a limited response, not provoking a United States response, may be their playbook.

Will be acceptable to the United States for Iran to destroy some infrastructure somewhere, but not kill anyone? The Honorable Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, shared that any response from Iran may be met with a disproportionate response. NOTE: On 16 January 2020, the United States Department of Defense reported eleven persons were injured during an 8 January 2020 missiles strike by Iran onto an airbase in Iraq.

What if Iran only murders a United States Major General? Should the United States and Iran call it a day? One-for-one; two-star for two-star.

Major General Qassim Suleimani was not a typical two-star Major General. A Major General in the United States, there are approximately 300, typically commands division-like units of 10,000 to 15,000 soldiers.

Qassim Suleimani was a Major General in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Commander of the Quds Force- which has an estimated membership of 20,000. In level of comparative significance, Major General Suleimani has been compared to a combined Chairman of the seven-member Joint Chiefs of Staff (JSC) at the United States Department of Defense (DOD) and Commander of the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) who manages approximately 69,000 personnel. Iran’s total active military personnel is 523,000.

Might the response by Iran be proportional or less-than-proportional in order that the United States will deem it having not met a threshold for a further response. Tit-absent-of-Tat.

Will Iran respond directly, publicly, so that there would be no confusion as to from where the decision to attack was conceived and implemented? Or, will Iran use a proxy or a group of proxies to respond so that the United States has less assurance that Iran was indeed the operational catalyst-and, as a result, the United States may, if at all, not respond directly to Iran.

The United States murdered ten people in Iraq, mostly citizens of Iraq, and a senior-level military officer of Iran. The United States used missiles from a MQ-9 Reaper drone.

The United States used military infrastructure to assassinate an Iranian Major General. Isn’t the proportional response for Iran to assassinate a United States Major General?

Or, will Iran look to the Quran or Bible for a “proportional” response? The eye-for-an-eye?

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Proportional: corresponding in size, degree, or intensity.
Disproportional: lack of proportion, symmetry, or proper relation.

From Wikipedia: "An eye for an eye" or the law of retaliation (Latin: lex talionis) is the principle that a person who has injured another person is to be penalized to a similar degree, and the person inflicting such punishment should be the injured party.

From Quran: 5:45 And we ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers. 42:40 The repayment of a bad action is one equivalent to it. But if someone pardons and puts things right, his reward is with Allah… 64:14 But if you pardon and exonerate and forgive, Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful. 3:134 who restrain anger and who pardon the people - and Allah loves the doers of good.

From Politico: Biblical scholars generally interpret "eye for eye," which was derived from the ancient Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, as a restriction on retaliation for personal injuries — in other words, only an eye for an eye. But in Matthew (5:38-42) in the New Testament, Jesus repudiates even that notion. "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away."