After recovering from the shock, the Iranian leadership will have to decide what the level of response to the Suleiman liquidation will be. • A policy of slow and systematic bloodshed, in a bid to demoralize domestic opinion, has proven itself on several fronts vis-à-vis the West.

Even before three days have passed since the new year began, one of the Jerusalem Institute's main strategy and security plans for 2020 is already coming to our eyes: a dramatic escalation of tension between the United States and Iran.

Report: Quds Suleimani Power Commander Eliminated // Photo: News agencies in Iraq

The assassination of Kassem Suleimani is surely the result of careful and penetrating intelligence work combined with operational capability that has matured in recent years. But what set the timing, and his fate, was the rage in Washington at the attack on the Baghdad embassy - not only because of its symbolic status, but also in light of the American memories of the Tehran events, 1979 to 1981, and Benghazi, September 2012 (where the US ambassador to Libya and three other diplomats were murdered) ). In both cases, humiliation and pain also had a profound political impact on Carter's and Hillary Clinton's public status. Trump must have been unwilling to have his political future held hostage by Suleimani and Khamenei.

It was only a matter of time before the deadly combination led Iran into a path of confrontation. On the one hand, increasing financial distress pushes them into desperate acts. On the other hand, operational prowess is curbed, as expressed in the attack on Saudi oil facilities. Sooner or later, the Iranian leadership was destined to drift one step too far - dragging the entire region to the brink of escalation.

Qassem Suleimani, Hassan Nasrallah and Ali Khamenei during a rare triple meeting in Tehran

Now, after the United States' firm action, the Iranian leadership is going to have to decide - when shocked - what the level of response will be. A far-reaching and sweeping move against the United States, or Israel, or the Gulf states, may only make matters worse and play into the hands of the Trump administration. The American people have not been deterred in the past from major war moves when they were forced upon it. On the other hand, a policy of slow and systematic bloodshed, with a view to demoralizing public opinion from home, has proven itself on several fronts facing the West.

If the Trump administration wants to dissuade the Iranians of this kind of "revenge," it will have to make it clear in the future that it will respond disproportionately to any injury to an American citizen (as he did this week). Determining the timing of this can also be a critical effect in efforts to force Iran to return to the nuclear negotiating table.

The writer serves as vice president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS), served as deputy head of the National Security Council and senior member of the UN