Iranian attack was measured • Senior Ayatollah regime officials rushed to send messages - almost begging - where the circle was closed • And now, the world is turning to Trump

• Senior Ayatollah regime at Suleimani's funeral / Photo: Reuters

Iran's missile attack tonight (Wednesday) at two Iraqi bases where US forces are located represents a significant increase in the escalation rate between the two countries. For the first time, Iran directly attacked US forces. So far, Iran has used its agents throughout the Middle East, and especially Iraq, to ​​strike American forces - with the aim of avoiding the US response.

Iranian Army missile attack on US bases in Iraq

More on:

The missiles launched by Iran arrive in Israel?

Despite raging rhetoric: Iran was content with moderate response

Missile attack on US military bases in Iraq; Iran: US response to shooting at Israel

US warns: Iran could damage Middle Eastern ships

Tensions with Iran: US is growing stronger

However, Iran's latest offensive can be seen as a measured and weighty military operation that conveys a message of a desire to avoid war. In the end, the action did not kill, and probably did not even hurt American forces. Then, the Iranian leadership issued messages - almost begging - stating that revenge was reached and the circle was closed for the assassination of Qasim Suleimani.

Now the question is whether and how the US will respond. US President Donald Trump expressed himself several times after the Suleimani assassination attempt to deter Iranian attack, threatening to select 52 Iranian targets (as a symbol of 52 US Navy sailors captured by Iran During the Obama administration) that the United States would attack them if Iran chose to respond to the assassination, and that "if Iran hits a US target or person, the United States will respond quickly and may be disproportionate."

US President Trump. The following developments depend on him / Photo: IP

However, keep in mind that Trump chose not to comment in the past. After Iran drops US drones, launches a series of cruise ship disruptions and disruptions to Gulf freedom, and attacks on oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. However, the presidential election year must weigh on the US decision to respond to the war. Trump certainly does not want to be drawn into the war or operation Widespread against Iran this year, which could hurt it electorally.

Trump's threats are now preparing him to respond, following the Iranian attack. Because the United States is not interested in escalation, and because its economic sanctions regime works well and significantly harms the Iranian economy, the United States is likely to choose to respond - if it responds - in a measured and deliberate manner, and with the power not to lead Iran to respond again, at least not a response that will require its continuation. The chain of military operations.

Hassan Rouhani praises Kassem Suleimani

Such a possibility could include a widespread attack on Shiite militia bases and Iranian assets and targets on Syrian and Iraqi soil, which would significantly harm Iran's establishment in these countries. On the one hand, there will be a determined and firm response from the United States, and on the other, Tehran is not expected to go to war, as it is not aimed at targets in Iran itself. Another possibility is a widespread cyber attack against Iran's vital infrastructures, especially against security and military-related infrastructures, and in particular the Iranian nuclear project. Being not a kinetic reaction, this possibility can also go unchallenged into widespread war.

The third option, which is more likely to lead to escalation and war opening, is American air strikes, using fighter jets or drones, against the air base of the Revolutionary Guards from which the missiles were launched. This will give the United States a message that it is responding in a targeted and relatively surgical manner. Against the focus of aggression aimed at Iraqi forces and not interested in the war, however, a direct US attack on Iran would significantly increase the escalation threshold and entail a risk that it would be doubtful if the Trump administration would want to take him at this point.

* The writer is a researcher at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security