By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to The New York Times, Iran collaborated with Qatari officials to orchestrate an attack on the Al-Udeid U.S. Air Force base. Three Iranian sources revealed that the primary objective was a symbolic strike against the U.S., while minimizing casualties. The attack was designed to provide a face-saving exit strategy for all parties involved, mirroring Iran’s response to the assassination of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani.
Read the original article here
Iran coordinated attack on its territory with Qatar to minimize casualties seems to be the underlying strategy here, and it’s fascinating. It’s almost like a pre-arranged performance, a carefully choreographed dance of geopolitical theater. The notion that Iran would launch a major, devastating attack seems unlikely, given their vulnerabilities. They can’t even effectively defend their own airspace.
This approach brings to mind the idea of a “missile strike,” with a pre-determined outcome – a show of force, but one designed to avoid any real damage or loss of life. The fact that these missiles “miss the target” and have no significant military impact speaks volumes. It’s a symbolic act, meant to satisfy a domestic audience while avoiding any actual escalation. This whole situation smacks of a pre-determined scenario, with each player knowing their role.
The suggestion that Qatar was involved, acting as a go-between to provide the United States with advance warning, further reinforces this idea. It’s a way for Iran to save face, claim they’ve responded to an event, while simultaneously ensuring there are no real-world consequences. This also allowed them to create a narrative of defiance for their own people. Essentially, the US gets the heads up, can intercept the missiles, and no one gets hurt.
One can imagine the implications if a passenger plane had been struck by a missile – a completely different narrative would have been spun, one of global condemnation. The fact that Qatar closed its airspace suggests awareness of the need to mitigate risk. It’s all about managing perceptions, and the potential consequences are far reaching if the messaging goes wrong.
The reasons behind this type of attack are multi-faceted. A core objective appears to be to appease the populace with a visible response to perceived offenses. However, it’s far more complex than that. It’s a calculated move to avoid a full-blown conflict, to maintain a semblance of strength, and to stay within the bounds of what is considered acceptable in the region’s delicate power dynamics.
Another element to consider is the US’s response. It is being indicated that the US appears to be allowing this behavior, potentially to maintain the stability of the region and avoid a protracted, costly war. They don’t want the risk of a nuclear fallout either. By letting Iran “respond” in this limited fashion, the US can avoid escalation while simultaneously appearing strong and in control. It’s an age old tactic – the illusion of control is sometimes more effective than actual control.
The fact that this kind of “controlled” response has been observed previously, during the aftermath of Soleimani’s death, further underscores the pattern. It’s clear that this is a strategic game, and one which will more than likely continue as long as the relevant players are involved.
Ultimately, the situation boils down to carefully crafted diplomacy, designed to minimize damage and potential escalation. While the surface may be chaotic, the underlying objective is to manage the current balance of power, with the understanding that no one wants a full-scale conflict. This is the true form of geopolitical “professional wrestling,” with the outcome already decided before the match even begins.
It’s worth acknowledging that we’re not living in a vacuum. Geopolitical situations, particularly those involving complex international relations, are not black and white. The world may not be a simple place, but it is very understandable.