My analysis is Iran's attacking a US base directly and ensuring of no US casualty was its best strategic option to avoid war.
1 - Iran had to save face domestically and regionally so had to attack.
2 - Most importantly, Iran had to immediately attack. With the calculation that many types of false flags or attacks against US personal by other entities would instantly be attributed to it.
A - Their foreign minister Zarif, made it clear that Iran will retaliate "direct and promotional" and not through any proxies, which was the same message signal by their Supreme leader[0]
B - After the attack ended, Zarif made it clear Iran is done with their retaliations[1]. So to avoid being blamed for any further attack that may take place in future date against US forces or interests.
Iran calculus probably was to avoid a high likely hood of attacks possibly orchestrated by Saudis or other entities (who benefit from a Us-Iran escalations) disguised as Iranian.
Having quickly retaliated, ensuring no US casualty and made it clear they're done, they're closing the door for getting blamed for false flags and trying to avoid additional escalations against US.
This signals a very rational and calculating player who doesn't want to escalate against US.
The question is how much US media would now push the narrative of crossing "red line" and forcing Trump to take escalatory military action.
One can even argue even this article uses a language like, "Iranian missile strike has caused extensive damage" and *"...show hangars and buildings hit hard by a barrage of Iranian missiles" to set the stage for US to take re-retaliatory steps.
My analysis is Iran's attacking a US base directly and ensuring of no US casualty was its best strategic option to avoid war.
1 - Iran had to save face domestically and regionally so had to attack.
2 - Most importantly, Iran had to immediately attack. With the calculation that many types of false flags or attacks against US personal by other entities would instantly be attributed to it.
A - Their foreign minister Zarif, made it clear that Iran will retaliate "direct and promotional" and not through any proxies, which was the same message signal by their Supreme leader[0]
B - After the attack ended, Zarif made it clear Iran is done with their retaliations[1]. So to avoid being blamed for any further attack that may take place in future date against US forces or interests.
Iran calculus probably was to avoid a high likely hood of attacks possibly orchestrated by Saudis or other entities (who benefit from a Us-Iran escalations) disguised as Iranian.
Having quickly retaliated, ensuring no US casualty and made it clear they're done, they're closing the door for getting blamed for false flags and trying to avoid additional escalations against US.
This signals a very rational and calculating player who doesn't want to escalate against US.
The question is how much US media would now push the narrative of crossing "red line" and forcing Trump to take escalatory military action.
One can even argue even this article uses a language like, "Iranian missile strike has caused extensive damage" and *"...show hangars and buildings hit hard by a barrage of Iranian missiles" to set the stage for US to take re-retaliatory steps.
[0] http://archive.is/tqv8M
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/iran-says-it-has-concluded-its-resp...