A blind eye and a silent lion: America’s villainous drama acted out by a vengeful Iran

Nora Bandari

After the killing of Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani on January 3 in a US strike, officials from the mullah regime continued to issue threats that they will respond harshly to avenge Soleimani. The entire world was waiting for the Iranian response, but the Iranian strike that was launched on January 7 against the Ain al-Asad and Erbil bases, which are used by US forces in Iraq, highlights that Iran talks a lot but does little. This strike did not result in the death of any American soldier, but most of the victims were Iraqis, as well as some Ukrainians, according to international and Arab media.

Coordination

Washington was aware in advance of the Iranian strike on its bases in Iraq and therefore distanced its soldiers, according to CNN. In addition, Washington had relocated its forces in the Arabian Gulf and the Sea of Oman to the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean on January 6 in order to keep the American forces out of range of Iranian missiles.

Iranian responses

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif announced after Iran’s retaliatory strike that Tehran did not want to escalate the situation any further. On the other hand, Iranian Revolutionary Guards leaders announced that Iran would continue to respond if the United States directed any other strikes against Iran. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei added that the military response that took place was just a mere slap and that the main response will be removing the US forces from the region, according to official Iranian television.

Repercussions

But a question that arises is whether the current tensions will end in negotiation or escalation, especially since the statements coming out of the mullah regime highlight two opinions so far. The first opinion is represented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which calls for calm and de-escalation in order for Iran to maintain a margin of political maneuvering ability in front of the international community. The second opinion, however, is a voice calling for war – whatever the cost or outcome – as represented by the Revolutionary Guards.

Iyad al-Majali, a researcher specializing in international relations, explained that the Iranian missile attack that targeted the US Ain al-Asad base in Iraq represents a military action that holds strategic implications, as Iranian decision-makers identified the symbolism and value of the target. He added that these attacks show a misreading of the scene, as well as the disproportion between the painful US strike, which resulted in the assassination of Soleimani, and Iran’s dull retaliatory attack, which was unconvincing to Iranian society and its regional allies.

Majali told the Reference that an Iranian escalation is currently unthinkable, because it needs to carry out a number of measures, such as determining targets with specific characteristics and symbolic value so as to inflict painful losses. So Iran will instead seek to make international political gains from its losses in order to ease the severity of the US economic sanctions. Tehran will also employ this process to rally the Iranian interior in its favor, so that it appears to Iranian citizens that their country is being targeted by an external power, namely the United States and Israel.

Three scenarios

Iranian affairs specialist Osama al-Hitimi pointed out that the nature of Iran’s response to Soleimani’s assassination very clearly reflects an Iranian desire to avoid a comprehensive war between the United States and Iran. Iran had options to escalate, given the fact that US bases in the region are within range of Iranian missiles, but it seems that the voice of reason was the loudest in determining Tehran’s response, which was an attempt for Iran to save face at home and abroad, while also not crossing a red line that could provoke Washington to escalate.

Hitimi told the Reference that the first scenario is that the United States accepts the Iranian response and considers it an attempt to absorb the anger of the Iranians, and then pass the Iranian process, especially since there is nothing to resent the American street, as the Iranian attacks did not result in any losses Humanity, and therefore the American administration will not come under public pressure to demand a response.

The second scenario is that the US considers the attack on its bases to be a provocation, despite the absence of American losses, and that silence could push Iran to attack again, which would warrant a new American response.

As for the third scenario, according to Hitimi, Iran would not be satisfied with the attacks that it launched on the two military bases in Iraq, especially if the Iranian masses and its arms abroad do not express their dissatisfaction with this, which would force Iran to act again. This is perhaps what prompted Ayatollah Khamenei to say that Iran’s response was just a slap and not enough to avenge Soleimani, which means that there could be another Iranian response that would escalate the situation again.