The story that culminated with Iran firing more than 300 drones and
missiles at Israel this past weekend followed a familiar pattern. It
was a narrative echo of the 2020 U.S.-Iran drama that brought us to the
brink of open war, and that similarity should be instructive for the
U.S. policy response.
Last time
- In 2020, then-President Donald Trump ordered the assassination of
General Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran's Quds Force, at Baghdad's
international airport. [CNN / Zachary Cohen et al.]
- Iran responded by firing missiles at two Iraqi bases where U.S.
troops were located. There were no casualties, an apparently deliberate
outcome. [NBC News / Courtney Kube and Doha Madani]
- "Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all
parties concerned and a very good thing for the world," Trump responded,
announcing the matter had ended. [Reuters / Steve Holland and Jeff Mason]
- Iran's then-Foreign Minister Javad Zarif likewise said Tehran did
"not seek escalation or war," casting the missile strikes as a limited
act of defense. [USA Today / John Fritze et al.]
This time
- An Israeli airstrike on an Iranian consular building in Syria on
April 1 killed Mohammad Reza Zahedi, Quds commander in Syria and
Lebanon. [Axios / Barak Ravid]
- Iran retaliated by firing hundreds of drones and missiles, per the
Israeli government, which also said 99 percent of the launches were
intercepted, and the attack caused only one casualty. [AP / Josef Federman and Jon Gambrell]
- Israel deemed this denouement a great success, and the "Iranians,
for their part, professed happiness with the outcome," too. "While the
drones were still in the sky, Iran's UN mission tweeted that the matter of the assassination 'can [now] be deemed concluded.'" [The Atlantic / Graeme Wood]
Why Iran stayed on-script
- Just as in 2020, Iran's response here is calculated to make a show of national bravado without inciting a grinding regional war.
- "Given the telegraphing and diplomatic backchanneling in advance of
these strikes," said DEFP Public Policy Manager Michael DiMino, "Iran
has likely calibrated this attack to provide a 'Goldilocks' response
aimed at a forceful reprisal that still mitigates escalation risks." [Bloomberg]
- That makes sense because of Iran's regional position and interests, as a DEFP explainer noted in 2019:
- "Iran is a middling power with an aging military checked by other
regional powers … Iran's size, terrain, and resilience make it very
costly to attack, but its ability to project power regionally is
minimal."
- "Iran is [already deterred from open conflict]; it understands it
would lose any conflict with the U.S., but that doesn't mean it will not
respond if threatened; Washington should stop confusing Iran's
responses, like developing and deploying missiles, with aggression." [DEFP]
- The right response for Washington, then, is to categorically reject
any proposal of a U.S.-Iran war over this incident—and to remove U.S.
troops from regional deployments (especially in Iraq and Syria) that
could make such a war more likely. [DEFP / Benjamin H. Friedman]
| | |