Could last night’s missile attacks be a form of de-escalation? The Iranian military shot missiles at two bases housing US military forces last night, one near Baghdad and the other in the Kurdish territory in the north. Thus far, however, the missiles appear to have done little if any damage to American personnel and materiel, which thus far also seems to have been a deliberate calculation.

NBC’s Richard Engel called it a “symbolic moment” for Iran, a “striking back with its own military.” It was heavy on the symbolism, not quite as much on the attack:

In fact, the missiles appeared curiously aimed at areas on the bases where the Americans aren’t. “Symbolic,” indeed:

There is a growing belief among some administration officials that Iran’s missiles intentionally missed areas populated by Americans during attacks on Tuesday, multiple administration officials said.

These officials floated the notion that Iran could have directed their missiles to hit areas that are populated by Americans — but specifically did not.

They suggested Iran may have chosen to send a message rather than take significant enough action to engender a substantial US military response, a possible signal the administration was looking for rationale to calm the tensions.

Missiles also hit close to the US consulate in Erbil, but didn’t go for the consulate itself, though the expectation is that they could have. Officials have said there were no US casualties as a result of the attacks.

Could they have missed on purpose? The Iranians have very sophisticated ballistic missile systems, writes the Jerusalem Post’s Seth Frantzman, which could very well have provided that pinpoint precision against well-known targets. Frantzman concludes that the use of precision missiles showed deliberate intent to prevent the kind of damage that would force a retaliatory strike. It’s “a roll of the dice for Tehran,” Frantzman writes, an attempt to win favor at home with a rare direct military attack on the US but one that the Trump administration could choose to slough off:

Iran has gambled with an early morning attack on two US bases in Iraq in response to the United States killing Iranian general Qasem Soliemani. Reports say that more than a dozen ballistic missiles were launched by Iran at Ayn al-Assad base and US forces stationed in Erbil, the capital of the Kurdistan Regional Government. This is a major roll of the dice for Tehran, which hopes the US will not respond – or at least not with a massive retaliation. …

Iran’s regime usually prefers ambiguity. It likes recruiting proxies such as Hezbollah or the Houthis in Yemen to use missiles so that it can have plausible deniability. Even when its drones attacked Saudi Arabia in September, it asked the Houthis to take credit. Iran never likes to do things itself, it wants others to fight and be the target of reprisals. That is why it was so outraged by Soleimani’s death.

And this is why the regime has gambled on Wednesday to strike at US forces in Iraq, hoping that the US doesn’t want to push the crises deeper and start a conflict in Iraq against lightly defended US bases there.

Iran must also be careful not to anger and alienate Iraqis. The attack on Erbil could stoke tensions in the Kurdistan region. Initial reports indicate the rockets that fell in Erbil did not do much or any damage. The major attack was at Ayn al-Assad base.

Iran claimed “major casualties” at the Ayn al-Assad base, but thus far there is no word on any such casualties. Six missiles hit the base, according to Pentagon sources for Western media outlets, but that’s a rather low number if Iran meant this as a serious opening gambit in a flat-out war. It’s the kind of “slap” — to use Ali Khameini’s word — that one would expect in a symbolic response meant to save face without getting it blown off.

Speaking of Khameini, he declared earlier this morning that the attack was “not enough” retribution for the killing of Qassem Soleimani, but he otherwise stuck to America-go-home rhetoric:

Iran’s supreme leader on Wednesday warned that an attack by Tehran against military bases in Iraq housing American troops was “not enough” of a punishment for the United States.

“They were slapped last night, but such military actions are not enough,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a televised speech in the holy city of Qom. “The corruptive presence of the U.S. in the West Asian region must be stopped.” …

“The U.S. has caused wars, division, sedition, destruction, and the demolition of infrastructures in this region,” Khamenei said Wednesday. “Of course, they do this everywhere in the world. This region won’t accept the U.S. presence. Governments elected by nations won’t accept the presence of the U.S.”

Despite the supreme leader’s ominous remarks, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif insisted in a tweet Tuesday evening that the Islamic Republic does “not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.”

Ominous? They sound largely impotent, and the missile attack underscored that impotence. Khameini’s specific phrasing of “military actions” being insufficient is a giveaway in this regard. Frantzman’s correct that Iran prefers ambiguity, but that’s a strategic choice based on weakness as well as a cultural choice. They use proxies because they don’t want to get hit in retaliation for direct action. The strike on Soleimani “changed the rules” by alerting Iran that the Trump administration won’t play along with that game any longer. The missile strikes last night went about as far as Iran can go under the new rules without provoking a larger response than the Soleimani strike, which they simply can’t afford to sustain.

We’ll see whether Iran has truly learned this lesson. If they don’t want war, they will have to end the attacks on US forces by Iranian proxies. If they don’t, Soleimani won’t be the last Iranian command-and-control asset they will lose in the field.

Update: It was very, very “symbolic”:

NATO officials say they can confirm there were no casualties among those forces serving with the NATO Mission Iraq as a result of the Iranian missile attack

— Ryan Browne (@rabrowne75) January 8, 2020