Thankfully, the crisis provoked by the US killing of top Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani has not escalated into a full-scale war.
In that sense, there has been de-escalation.
But none of the basic factors that led these two countries to the brink of war have changed. Here's why this crisis is far from over.
- De-escalation is only temporary
What some analysts see as de-escalation is nothing of the kind.
Iran's leaders - shocked to their very core by the killing of Soleimani - did what they could to strike back. Iran wanted to respond by hitting US targets and it wanted the address of the sender to be clear. Thus, it used missiles fired from within its own territory.
But there were practical and political constraints on its actions. It wanted to do something quickly. It was off-balance. And it did not want to start an all-out war.
This account, as many Iranian spokesmen have made clear, is not closed.
Indeed, as soon as the bulldozers began to clear away the wreckage from the crash site it was clear that Iran knew exactly what had happened. If there was any suggestion of an accident, then there was every reason for the authorities to leave the debris untouched.
The country's admission was related more to its own domestic problems. Just a few months ago, there was a wave of protests against corruption and the collapsing economy.
Look how quickly protests have been revived. This is about damage limitation at home not de-escalation with the Americans.
- US policy is not changing
Why did the US kill Soleimani and attempt to strike at a second senior Iranian official in Yemen? It has claimed - perhaps for legal reasons - that it was acting to prevent a serious imminent attack against US interests.
This argument has not convinced many analysts or the president's critics in Washington.
It is much more likely that the attacks were an attempt to re-establish some clear line of deterrence. In the short-term this may work. Iran is going to have to calibrate its future actions very carefully.
Iran's strategic goal is to push the US out of the region, at least in Iraq, and this may be closer to being realised than it was before Soleimani's killing.
From the Iranian authorities' perspective at least, Tehran's policy has had many notable successes. It has saved President Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria and enabled it to open up a new front against Israel. It has a significant influence in Iraq.
Because of the contradictions in President Trump's policy, US allies in the region feel increasingly on their own. The Saudis have been exploring a low-level dialogue with Tehran; Turkey is going its own way and establishing a new relationship with Russia. Only Israel's government seems to think that the Soleimani killing portends a renewed engagement from Mr Trump in the region.
They may be disappointed.
Internal dissent and a crumbling economy may push the IRGC to up the pressure on the US over time. It has just suffered two devastating hits and it will be smarting for revenge.
- There are contradictions in Iraq's position
The sign pointing to the exit for US troops in Iraq is now looking bolder and brighter than ever.
Iraq's provisional government is in crisis having suffered its own wave of popular protest. Many people are unhappy with both the US presence and Iran's influence in the country.
A non-binding parliamentary vote has put the issue of a US troop withdrawal firmly on the agenda. This does not mean that the US forces are on their way out tomorrow, but it will require some deft diplomacy to keep them there.
Instead, President Trump has threatened to freeze Iraqi government funds in US banks if they force the Americans out.
The US involvement in Iraq matters. When their forces and their allies took on the fighters of Islamic State in Iraq it was always seen as a long-term deployment. Once the IS caliphate was destroyed, it was expected US forces would remain there for years.
If they are ejected, it makes it much harder to contain any IS resurgence. But it would also make the remaining US presence in eastern Syria untenable because this is largely supported from US bases in Iraq. The debate on the US troop presence is only just beginning - and it is one that if the US loses, Iran probably wins.
- The nuclear deal is in real trouble
The roots of this latest crisis go back to May 2018 when the Trump Administration abandoned the Iran nuclear deal.
Since then, the US has been applying maximum pressure on Iran's economy and Iran has been pursuing a regional pressure campaign of its own by successively renouncing various restrictions imposed by the agreement.
If the deal is not dead, then the only reason it remains alive is that nobody other than President Trump is willing to see it collapse. Unless something changes, then it is the beginning of the end.