LOL GPF 10 minutes ago:

Iran retaliates. The dust is still settling after Iran fired an estimated 15 ballistic missiles at (at least) two Iraqi military bases housing U.S. forces early Wednesday morning. The Pentagon has yet to release an official damage report, but multiple sources have suggested no U.S. personnel were hurt and only minimal damage was inflicted on U.S. materiel. An unconfirmed number of Iraqi casualties have been reported. The veracity of these reports will, to some degree, dictate how the U.S. responds.

Here are the most significant aspects of Iran’s strikes: One, they were launched from Iranian soil, and Tehran made no attempt to maintain plausible deniability by retaliating through regional proxies. Two, Iran attacked with ballistic missiles rather than, say, rockets used by Iranian proxies in the past attacks. The Iranian ballistic missile program has made major strides in recent years; as with the attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure this summer, Tehran was once again attempting to demonstrate an ability to deliver heavy explosives from a distance to sensitive targets with a relatively high degree of accuracy – and to wreak major havoc across the region, including in Israel, which Hezbollah threatened to attack if the U.S. struck back. Three, damage is believed to be limited.

It’s possible, of course, that Iran just missed its real targets on the other side of the (very large) bases – that Iranian missiles aren’t actually as accurate as claimed. But officials from both sides have told multiple outlets that this was intentional, and that the U.S. was warned (possibly via the Iraqi government) to batten down the hatches before the attacks started. If true, then Tehran was leaving open an opportunity for de-escalation. Indeed, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that unless the U.S. retaliates, Iran had “concluded” its “proportional” response. In other words, Iran has made its point and made a big show of force to satisfy hawks at home. (Tehran is claiming as many as 80 U.S. personnel were killed.) And the U.S. can point to what appears to be a measured response to justify standing pat.

Still, even if the U.S. holds its fire, it’s doubtful that this thing is over altogether. As intimated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – which, unlike the government, said the attacks were merely the “first step” – the Iranian response was not proportional to the killing of Qassem Soleimani, and historically, the IRGC has always retaliated, often to the consternation of the government and its diplomatic and strategic goals. And when it does, it does so quietly, through covert action conducted months or years after a provocation, often via proxies and in a place far from the original battlefield. The threat of, say, an assassination will hang over U.S. and allied officials for some time to come, so the risk of further escalation between the U.S. and Iran can’t be ignored.

The underlying sources of tension between Washington and Tehran have only stiffened. Tehran is still grappling with crippling sanctions, immense domestic anger over Soleimani’s killing, a security establishment capable of defying the government, unwavering imperatives compelling it to remain aggressive in the region, and a decision on whether and how quickly to resume its nuclear pursuits. For now, though, there’s a chance to avoid an immediate spiral toward all-out war.

At least I'm getting good at parroting the thinking of the wonks I pay