Philip Klein:
“…As I pointed out before, Trump most likely viewed taking out Soleimani as a calculated risk worth taking. With an economy being crippled by sanctions, regular domestic protests, and military stretching throughout the Middle East, the Iranian regime could afford a major escalation a lot less than the U.S. To Iran’s rulers, war with the U.S. poses an existential threat.
The early indications are that Iran blinked. The regime dramatically launched ballistic missiles toward U.S. troops and made a big show of it to the world, but it also chose targets where it knew Americans were expecting an attack and would be able to take preparations to reduce or avoid casualties. It was telling that even the threats Iran issued tonight, that if the U.S. retaliates, Iran will attack Israel and Dubai, suggest an unwillingness to engage the U.S. were it to risk actual casualties.
It’s possible that, as the sun rises in Iraq and there is a full assessment, it will reveal there were, in fact, casualties. It also is possible that, even in the absence of casualties, Trump could choose to retaliate in a way that triggers another response from Iran. But that seems unlikely. Remember, when Trump backed off retaliating for Iran’s downing of a drone in June, he said the decisive factor was that it was unmanned. If there were no casualties in this case, Trump has an opening to declare victory and avoid a retaliatory strike. In any event, he certainly can take a pause before making any dramatic moves…
…By taking out Soleimani, Trump not only undermined Iran’s capabilities in the region, but he reestablished deterrence by demonstrating that the U.S. had the means, the intelligence assets, and the will to strike Iran hard. Barring casualties, this attack can be shrugged off by the U.S. The cost-benefit analysis is not even close…”