No Casualties Signaled Iran Was Not Done, Then Jet Crashed

The U.S. averted casualties in Iran's relatiation this week, but debate over whether that was intentional on behalf of Iran rages.

Ultimately the truth determines how far U.S.'s enemy is willing to go in the standoff – not necessarily "stand down" – that ensued, experts told USA Today.

In fact, because they did not kill someone on the level of terrorist group leader Qassem Soleimani, there should be expectation of further retaliation. Also, the targets are noteworthy, because they sought to strike aircraft and munitions – perhaps to mitigate a response to the retaliation, expecting this will not be over.

"This is the first, not the final, shot from Iran," Center for Strategic and International Studies' Eric Brewer, who focuses on Iran issues at Trump's National Security Council, told USA Today. "Whether or not Iran intended to kill Americans, I don't think we should expect that this is the only step that Iran is going to take on."

But, as Defense Secretary Mark Esper suggested Sunday, Iran's shooting down of a passenger airline later that fateful morning put its regime on shaky ground to engage the U.S. in warfare.

"You can see the Iranian people are standing up and asserting their rights, their aspirations for a better government — a different regime," Esper told CBS's "Face the Nation."

Retired Gen. Mark Quantock, who served as director of intelligence for Central Command, suggested the Iran acted deliberately in their strikes of Iraqi bases housing American troops – not in their intention not to kill – but being unable to use the element of surprise and instead focusing on assets that do damage in the future. Fighting someone ready to fight is a lot tougher than fighting someone not ready to fight.

"They were trying to kill equipment and housing," Quantock told USA Today. "They signaled the attack and knew we were watching. Through technical means, we would know that they were fueling missiles and positioning them. They also knew the Iraqis would tell us."

The U.S. had ample time to get troops and equipment out of harm's way.

"This is phase one of their response," Quantock added to USA Today.

"Blood for blood. Likely mortars or rocket attacks. Damage, explosions and casualties."

But the goal for Iran might not to be kill U.S. troops in retaliation, but to get American troops out of Iraq permanently, according to the Atlantic Council's Thomas Warrick to USA Today, which is something President Donald Trump had been talking about doing anyway.

"By the grace of God no one was killed," Warrick told USA Today, adding, "It's a huge mistake to rely on luck to save your country from a major and devastating military response, which would have been the case if someone simply decided to go out and retrieve an item in their tent.

"And that kind of action is as dangerous as anything else that I've heard criticized from any party in this dispute."

• Iran Could Launch EMP Attack 'in a Few Months,' Woolsey Warns
• Fred Fleitz to Newsmax TV: 'Trump Derangement Syndrome Poisoning Foreign Policy'