- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
- Click here to share on LinkedIn (Opens in a new window)
- Click to email a friend (Opens in a new window)
What would a war between Iran and the United States be like? 2:04
Beirut, Lebanon (CNN) - It is perhaps the most brazen attack Iran has launched against the United States in four decades of undercover and open conflict.
The moment. The objective. Threats of strong reprisals are already "charged and pointed," as President Donald Trump would have done.
However, Wednesday morning missile attacks against al-Asad air base and Erbil airport, which house US troops, were clearly not an act designed to kill as many Americans as possible.
- 11 facts (and something else) that you might not know about Iran
- Look: Iraq was alerted before Iran's attack
Iran will have known that troops are normally asleep in the early hours of the morning. The choice to attack probably minimized the amount of staff that roams the base and could die or be injured.
You will also have known that the United States has a strong air defense system that would have been on high alert. Tehran should have an idea of how well their missiles would do against such technology.
Missile attacks make no sense if Tehran's goal was to really hurt American troops in large numbers, as some had promised to do.
However, they make sense if they are seen as the execution of the supreme leader Ali Khamenei of counterattacking openly, from army to army.
Khamenei's instructions were confusing when first reported, since the United States would surely prevail in a direct military conflict. So was the supreme leader ordering a demonstration of empty strength?
Wednesday's attacks sent a message that Iran would violate the red lines of the United States and get involved in a direct war, but they didn't kill anyone.
The only thing that could have been hurt is the Iranian military pride because at a time when they gave so much hype, they didn't hurt their adversary.
- World leaders call for tension escalation and dialogue between the US and Iran
- Look: The consequences of the conflict between the US and Iran in the Middle East
Three possible explanations
The waters are still going down, and even in the best case, Iran's motivations are dull, but there are three possible explanations for this military attack.
First, that Khamenei, the octogenarian supreme leader of Iran, is not in touch with what his army can achieve and has overestimated the effectiveness of the attacks, which then failed.
Such miscalculation would be surprising, given his alleged participation and knowledge of Iranian military affairs.
Secondly, he gained moderation, and this largely empty signal (attacking military targets in the dark of the night with a small number of missiles) provides the exit ramp that both parties could have been looking for.
This would be logical, given that neither Tehran nor Washington have much to gain from a prolonged struggle.
Third, it could be an Iranian commitment to calm the United States in a false sense of security that Iran is militarily weak and has done its worst, while plotting an asymmetric and more unpleasant response.
That would require a lot of strategic insight from a government division between the hard and moderate line wings, and it would mean that Tehran was relatively certain that no Americans would be injured in this missile attack.
It is possible that Iran has allowed a warning to be made to the United States. The Iraqi prime minister's office said he received a verbal notification from Tehran just before the attack. It's hard to see how the United States would not learn from that in any way.
- Iran fires missiles at bases in Iraq with US military
- Look: Iran's foreign minister declares the end of reprisals
The risk of new actions
If the attacks in Iraq are in fact the full scope of Iran's response, they carry another risk: that the Trump administration thinks its shabby performance over the past week has been worthwhile, and Iran has been defeated.
This would run the risk of additional irrational action by Washington, perhaps not only against Iran but also against other enemies. It would also make Iran appear weak, which could embolden other regional adversaries in Tehran.
Much will depend on the mood of Donald Trump when he wakes up. About what Fox News says. And about whether he feels belittled by Iran's rhetoric.
Iran's Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, has sent the clear message that Iran does not want war. It is notable that his moderate English-speaking voice was clearly heard during this volatile morning, at a time when moderation could be considered to have gone to the background.
Trump can take that exit ramp. Tehran and Washington have one thing in common: their lack of appetite for an open and prolonged conflict with the other. Iran has a weak economy and internal dissent. Trump wants reelection and not another episode of "sand and death."
Iran has given a loud, public and ardent response to the surprisingly open death of the country's main commander. Their allies can take advantage of this courage and even choose to believe in false Iranian claims that there were US casualties.
This can probably cause a slower retaliation against other softer targets to be announced - by proxies or covert forces - that is, the retaliation that most analysts expected.
But this is not a reason to be cheerful. Yes, both parties may have deliberately moved away from a long and disorderly conflict, however, both have learned that they can attack directly.
The United States and Iran have done things that perhaps were unthinkable a week ago. That is not good news. This morning's tone may be straightforward, but Washington and Tehran had to reach a much darker place than they have seen in decades and choose calm.
Qasem Soleimani