Early on Sunday morning, several rockets pounded an area near the United States embassy in Iraq, including the "green zone" that is a base for US troops in Baghdad.

There were no casualties, only minor damage, an unnamed US military official confirmed. Washington blamed the rockets on a hardline Iraqi military faction close to Iran.

It was the 19th attack on US troops in Iraq since October and the second time that a US military base was attacked in three days. On the evening of Feb 13, the K1 military base near the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk came under a rocket attack.

On Dec 27, the military base was hit by 30 rockets that killed a US contractor, becoming the trigger for the Jan 3 US air strike that killed top Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani and a senior Iraqi Shiite militia officer. So, how will the US react to the latest attacks?

That a US military official said the latest attacks caused only minor damage may indicate a restrained approach from the US. Indeed, after Iran struck two US military bases with missiles on Jan 8, causing 109 US servicemen to suffer concussion, US President Donald Trump refrained from further retaliation.

Considering the US election season is approaching and the US military suffered limited losses this time, retaliatory action from the US looks unlikely.

Besides, if the US intends to retaliate, it would first think carefully about what costs it can sustain. For if the US responds, the situation in Iraq will spiral out of control, an expensive cost the US does not wish to bear.

With the US likely to reduce dependence on the Middle East for its energy, it may only hope to enhance Iraq's military capabilities or promote de facto division-based rule in Iraq.

Cultivating agents, shortening the battle lines and moving from overall to regional control in the Middle East remains a new option. However, such a practice is likely to intensify sectarian and ethnic divisions and undermine the sovereignty of the countries involved, leading to greater chaos in the region.