1. We don't have official attribution for this operation, but the usual suspects list is pretty small. https://twitter.com/aliarouzi/status/1332322276692414465

2. We don't know what active role, if any, the U.S. government played, like sharing intelligence and targeting information or something more overt. Trump's attack on Soleimani does raise questions about how Trump interprets the law + how he weighs (or doesn't costs/benefits).

3. We have EOs governing US involvement in political assassinations

https://edition.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.policy/ via @CNN

3. Will let the experts chime in on how much this operation impacts Iran's nuclear program, but it is also an embarrassment for the regime. Someone was able to plan and plot a coordinated attack on Iranian soil = major security breach for the regime.

4. Same held for the alleged sabotage attack on an Iranian nuclear facility this summer.

5. And "Just this year, it was the third high-profile attack to shake Tehran's leadership."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iran-nuclear-scientist-killed/2020/11/27/dede5c1c-30bb-11eb-9dd6-2d0179981719_story.html via @kfahim @JobyWarrick @MiriamABerger

6. This operation likely aimed at killing two birds with one stone: setback the nuclear program (defense) and raise the costs of continuing it (deterrence).

It could also have been aimed at impeding negotiations post 1/20.

7. The question now is how Iran responds. We don't know if there are any backchannel efforts to calm tensions and try to limit Iran's response. The Trump administration's word hasn't been credible with the regime for some time, and now they are lame ducks.

8. Speaking of strategies, assassinating scientists is not a strategy for neutralizing Iran's nuclear program.

9. This operation is a stark reminder of Trump's failed Iran policy and the fact that Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than when Trump came into office.

Trump exited the JCPOA and failed at finding an alternative.