This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/08/irans-assault-on-us-bases-in-iraq-might-satisfy-both-sides

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Iran's assault on US bases in Iraq might satisfy both sides Iran's assault on US bases in Iraq might satisfy both sides
(about 11 hours later)
Tehran can show it has retaliated over the assassination of Qassem Suleimani, while US can shrug off limited nature of strike Tehran can show it has retaliated over Suleimani, while US may shrug off limited strike
The “severe revenge” Iran promised for the death of Qassem Suleimani was heralded on Wednesday morning by at least two waves of short-range missile attacks on bases in Iraq hosting US and coalition personnel. Iran unleashed its “severe revenge” for the death of Qassem Suleimani, with short-range ballistic missile attacks on the largest US base in Iraq and another military site hosting American troops in Erbil on Wednesday morning.
The attacks will provide an opportunity for hawks inside the Donald Trump administration to ratchet up the conflict with Iran – but also potentially a pathway out of the crisis. The attacks could provide an excuse for hawks inside the Donald Trump administration to kick off a full-blown war with Iran – but more likely, a pathway out of the crisis.
The Iranian strikes were heavy on symbolism. The missiles were launched around 1.30am in Iraq, roughly the same time as the drone strike that killed Suleimani on Friday morning. Top Iranian advisers and semi-official media outlets tweeted pictures of the country’s flag during the attack, mirroring Donald Trump’s tweet as the first reports of Suleimani’s death were emerging. The Revolutionary Guards dubbed the operation “Martyr Suleimani”. Videos of the missiles being launched were released to Iranian media outlets. The Iranian strikes were heavy on symbolism. The missiles were launched around 1.30am in Iraq, roughly the same time as the drone strike that killed Suleimani outside Baghdad’s airport on Friday morning. The first projectiles struck their targets shortly after the Iranian general’s coffin was lowered into the ground in the city of Kerman. The Revolutionary Guards called the operation “Martyr Suleimani”. They distributed videos of the missiles being launched to be broadcast across Iranian media.
But in their immediate aftermath, the attacks appear to have been carefully calibrated to avoid US casualties – fired at bases that were already on high alert. Despite this theatricality, the attacks appear to have been carefully designed to avoid US casualties: fired at bases that were already on high alert and so far registering no confirmed deaths. Adel Abdul-Mahdi, the Iraqi prime minister, said he was forewarned of the attacks as they were imminent, and passed the alert to troops stationed at the base.
Iran’s foreign minister has said the strikes have concluded and characterised them as self-defence within the boundaries of international law – not the first shots in a war. Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said the strikes were characterised as self-defence and within the boundaries of international law, not the first shots in a war. He added the attacks had now concluded. Even the hardline Revolutionary Guards said in a statement that they considered this round of overt hostilities to be over if the US declined to respond.
Trump, in his first comments after the strikes, also sought to play them down. This presents an opportunity for Trump that that US president appears to have recognised. Far from the over-the-top warnings he issued in recent days, he used his first comments after the unprecedented attack to play it down.
If Trump’s assessment of the damage holds, Wednesday’s strikes might be an opportunity for both sides to de-escalate without losing face. Iran will be able to say it took violent revenge for Suleimani’s death and pivot to a campaign of proxy warfare – with which it feels more comfortable, against a vastly more powerful adversary – and diplomatic pressure to eject American forces from Iraq. He tweeted: “All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning.”
The US can also step back, shrugging off the retaliation as being of no significant consequence. That is the best-case scenario, but it rests on two risky premises: that more than a dozen missiles struck bases hosting US military personnel without substantial damage or casualties; and that the White House will resist any urge to respond. If Trump’s assessment of no casualties holds, Wednesday’s strikes may be a chance for both sides to de-escalate the crisis without losing face at home. Iran will be able to claim it took violent revenge for Suleimani’s death and claim, falsely, that it killed dozens of US personnel, leaving it free to return to the kind of fighting it prefers: campaigns of proxy and covert warfare that present less existential risk against a vastly more powerful adversary. Iran can also press its case with the Iraqis to expel American forces from Iraq, a goal that was dear to Suleimani’s heart and Iran’s highest regional priority.
The US, too, can step back, shrugging off Iran’s retaliation as insignificant – with Trump potentially able to extract political points at home for killing a key American adversary without suffering significant consequences.
That is the best-case scenario, but it rests on two risky premises: that more than a dozen missiles struck bases hosting US military personnel without substantial damage or casualties, and that Trump’s White House will resist any urge to fire back.