"That Iran will retaliate is not in question, analysts say. Not to do so would be a sign of weakness..."

"... that could jeopardize the enormous influence Iran has gained in the region over the past four decades.... 'Iran has to retaliate, and it will be a retaliation to restore the deterrence lost by this assassination,' said [Kamel Wazne, a Beirut-based political analyst]. But he and other analysts also believe Iran also has no appetite for a full-scale war with the United States that would deplete its already precarious finances and leave it heavily outgunned. Iran, analysts say, has to calibrate its response — inflicting enough damage on the United States that it is seen to be avenging Soleimani’s death without precipitating an all-out war. The question is how?... In years gone by, Iranian allies have blown up American embassies and kidnapped American citizens with devastating effect, driving American troops and diplomats out of Lebanon in the 1980s and propelling the ascent of the Iranian-allied Hezbollah movement there.... Since May, Iran has been harassing ships and firing rockets at American troops in Iraq.... [W]hat more can Iran do that 'it has not already done?'... 'Iran cannot go to war in the region. In Iraq their options are becoming very limited for them because any escalation in Iraq exposes them to more attacks by the U.S.,' [said Hanin Ghaddar, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy]. 'In Lebanon it’s going to be difficult because of the financial crisis. They cannot fund a war in Lebanon or anywhere else.'... 'My sense is that we will see an escalation in Iraq,' said Maha Yahya, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center. 'But I don't think the Iranians really want a war with the U.S. I don't think they are interested in an all-out regional conflict.'"

From "Iran has vowed revenge against the U.S. But it seems to be in no hurry" (WaPo).

When you got to the end of what I excerpted, did you look back to the beginning — "That Iran will retaliate is not in question" — and... question?

Does the Washington Post seem to be encouraging Americans to brainstorm about how Iran can hurt us? Whether that was the idea or not, the top-rated comment over there is: "Trump Hotels. Very soft targets, and if they are heavily protected, no one will stay in them. A threat to the hotel chain would work wonders."

Somebody else says: "If Iran really wants to harm America as a whole, they might help Russia hack the 2020 elections to help Trump get a second term. That is frightening, but I doubt they'd do it." Why would Iran want Trump to get a second term? Their brainstorming isn't just evil, it's stupid.