The Iranian response to the assassination of Qassem Soleimani can, at present, be described as measured and cautious.
It appears that despite the heated rhetoric, Iran's leadership has chosen to mitigate the risk levels and ensured, through a limited rocket barrage at two American bases in Iraq (which caused no casualties), to send a message that the regime doesn't want to jump into the abyss for the time being. Indeed, although this is a direct clash between two sworn enemies, we get the impression that the ayatollah regime is well aware of the perils inherent to an unchecked escalation, and therefore is trying to strike the right balance between its desire to project its staunch commitment to retaliating for the assassination, and thus continue along the violent path paved by Soleimani, and its simultaneous desire to prevent Trump from ordering a broad, painful military response that could completely undermine its ability to rule at a time of intensifying sanctions and protest waves at home.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
The balance point it chose overnight Tuesday indicates self-restraint, rather than a desire for a no-holds-barred conflict. Even though the rocket fire at American forces unprecedentedly crossed a clear red line (as previously only Iranian proxies had attacked the Americans), it focused on restricting the fight strictly to the front in Iraq, not beyond. From this perspective, Soleimani's assassination and the consequent Iranian missile strike are somewhat mutual. Both actions took place in Iraq, and both employed missile fire. Because the elimination of Soleimani is a profound political and operational setback, not to mention a blow to the prestige of the regime, it's easy to understand the propaganda effort to exaggerate the scope of its response and present it as significant.
With that, in actuality, we see the distinct gap between the verbal and physical aspects of the response, evidence of Iran's sensitivity to the price it can expect to pay for its unbridled adventurism. Indeed, at least for now, Iran has used considerable force, albeit in a relatively small dose and in a defined sector with boundaries – evidence that Trump's strategic doctrine of "the rationality of the irrational" is getting the job done. To be sure, the American president's now-well-established willingness to cross accepted and familiar thresholds and act "outside the box" has seemingly had a substantial restraining effect on the Iranian adversary, which is facing a real and credible American threat of retaliation if it adheres to its subversive and belligerent behavior. In this context, the purpose of Trump's statements on Wednesday (which included a declaration of additional sanctions) was to erase any remaining doubt the Iranians still might have and to buttress his tough actions with strong words.
However, Trump's comments also imply that beyond the new and imminent sanctions, from its perspective the US doesn't want to escalate the conflict any further militarily. As such, his speech combined messages of appeasement and a willingness to cooperate with the Iranian people and their country's leadership, if it abandons its current path of violence and aggression.
Additionally, we must not ignore the potential impact of Iran's actions on the North Korean front. Pyongyang, we can only presume, has taken serious note of the American president's obvious willingness to employ severe force against harmful provocations. It stands to reason, therefore, that Kim Jong Un could reassess his course of action in terms of North Korea's ballistic missile and nuclear weapons projects.
