Ian Toll (author of Six Frigates, Rising Tide, and other history) gives his opinion on taking out Solemani.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/12/before-soleimani-there-was-yamamoto-history-is-very-different/
Ian Toll didn't really compare the two situations. Rather, he described the Yamamoto shoot down, while begging off Solemani comparisons due to a lack of information. I'll defer to Jarhead here, but it seems to me that one contrast between the two situations is that Yamamoto was a lawful combatant. In my opinion, Solemani was not a lawful combatant, by virtue of how he conducted an undeclared war using terrorist/illegal methods. Accordingly, as a matter of law, he was not protected by the laws of armed conflict. We could basically do almost anything we wanted to him, according to the rules of war. Whether it is wise to do so is another question.
Agreed. Both reaped what they themselves had sown, but Yamamoto was clearly the more honorable opponent. Both fought war the best way they could against their view of their country's enemies but while Yamamoto was a Warrior, Solemani was an Assassin striking at the innocent as well as his enemies, even his own people when they threatened his government, and could never have reasonably expected to be protected by International Law. Especially after being designated an International Terrorist by the Obama Admin.
As soon as this happened I was thinking of the Yamamoto situation. However, didn't hear any of the broadcasters bring it up. Perhaps, I just missed the segment.
I'm surprised there weren't more references to it too.