The Pentagon had deployed its finite inventory of Middle East-deployed, high-demand Patriot missile batteries elsewhere in the region to bases that the Pentagon deemed a higher priority. This has included, for example, bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

This decision, however, left roughly 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq within striking distance of Iran without sufficient ballistic missile defenses.

Some might argue that the lack of casualties in the Iran strike demonstrates that such protection is not necessary. It would, however, be ill-advised and dangerous to assume a future Iranian missile attack against forward deployed U.S. troops would fail to inflict serious American casualties.

Following the attack, there has been widespread speculation about Tehran’s intentions. The debate has centered on whether Iran merely sought a face-saving but casualty-free assault that it could highlight for domestic consumption, or whether it was actually seeking to kill Americans, as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, indicated.

In crises and military conflicts, an adversary’s intentions can change quickly; it is therefore at least as important to focus on enemy capabilities.

Given the size of Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal, Wednesday’s attack was relatively modest in scale. As a 2019 Defense Intelligence Agency report assessed, Iran’s missile capabilities are formidable.