If Iran’s ballistic missile attack on two U.S. military bases in Iraq overnight is the totality of its retaliation for Qassem Soleimani’s killing, the United States should accept it.
But is this the end? Or just the beginning?
The first point to note is that these strikes aren’t really a problem for America. Neither U.S. nor Iraqi forces appear to have suffered any casualties, and there are other indirect positives.
Take Iran’s use of ballistic missiles, which are ultimately designed to carry nuclear warheads. Yes, those weapons are more deadly than the rockets and conventional missiles that Iran traditionally employs in its attacks. But their use this week will also reinforce a central plank of the Trump administration’s messaging on the 2015 nuclear accord. Namely, that the deal President Barack Obama brokered requires renegotiation in order to address Iranian ballistic missile proliferation. Now that the Europeans have seen Iran employing these weapons effectively, they may be more receptive to adopting President Trump’s position.
Iran also hurts itself by attacking Iraqi territory.
While this responds to Soleimani’s killing in Iraq with an attack on U.S. forces in Iraq, it will fuel anti-Iranian populism. Until Soleimani’s demise, that growing populist movement was the big story in Iraq. It was supported not simply by Sunnis, but by a wide swathe of Iraq’s majority Shia community and its leaders. This attack will obstruct Iran from unifying the Iraqi Shia polity around its victimhood narrative.
The most important remaining issue, then, is whether this is the beginning of Iranian retaliation or the end.
The answer is unclear. While Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif describes a “completed” retaliation, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei says the strikes are an insufficient response alone. President Hassan Rouhani insists Iran will push the U.S. out of the Middle East. Of course, Iranian leaders have been saying that for 40 years.
Where does this leave us? With the need to take stock of the positives.
Iran’s first retaliation has been mild in its harm, and, for the aforementioned reasons, risky in means. The U.S. should not respond to this attack with force. But Khamenei may yet order new action, even if Rouhani and Zarif oppose escalation. The hardliners will find it particularly hard to resist new terrorist plots designed to hide Tehran’s culpability.
Trump should thus remind Iran that America will not tolerate the killing of its citizens by Iran or its proxies. Furthermore, he should remind the world that Soleimani had it coming.
