Not really. Actually the conflict started when Iranian Shia proxies targeted US base and killed a US military contractor. I don't know if they thought the US will just let it go or something. The US retaliated more than they expected killing key figures in PMU linked to Iran (over 30 were killed)l and many more injured). These Iranian backed Shias militias later assaulted US Embassy in Iraq but just some damaged was done to the building (no casualties). The U S again responded by targeting and killing Iran's top general and Quds force leader(responsible for Iran's expeditionary military forces in the middle east/ Arab world) soleimani and together with top Iraqi Shia militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, an adviser to Soleimani, was also killed in the attack and other of their security staffs.
Subsequent Iranian civilian deaths you mentioned were caused by Iranian themselves.
All this was merely the result of these Iranian Shias militias targeting US base with missiles and killing merely 1 U.S military contractor in Kirkuk. So imagine the retaliation if there was many more US casualties thereafter.
Contrary to many, I believe this US massive retaliation was a good thing in the long term. It will make many of these Iranian backed militias to be more careful and reluctant in targeting US forces and I'm sure their patrons in Tehran will also advice them to exercise more restrain in future( we can see how Iran made sure there was no US casualty during their 'retaliation' against US bases recently, some say the other side was even warned in advance before missiles were launched) US is not KSA or FSA which can be bombed or killed without any repercussions. So I believe long term wise US action is a good thing for both Iran and the US , since it will reduce direct conflict between both sides.
So figures Wil be more like:
US- 1killed
Iran - about 40 killed by US directly and over 200killed indirectly due to Iran's own actions.
Deterent is the best medicine for peace.
