Follow this authorDavid Ignatius's opinions
Follow
These groups are “undeterred,” to use the antiseptic language of strategists. The Pentagon has retaliated after some attacks, but not forcefully enough. Experts estimate 50,000 to 80,000 Iranian-backed militia fighters operate in Iraq alone. These Shiite militias apparently think the United States is a low-risk target. So, evidently, do the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen who have been firing missiles at ships traveling toward the Red Sea, disrupting international shipping. These calculations must change.
Job No. 1 for the Biden team is “attribution.” It must identify precisely which Iranian proxy launched the deadly drone and determine whether it did so on orders from Tehran. With that information, Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla, the head of U.S. Central Command, can prepare a plan to destroy the group’s ability to kill Americans. The umbrella “Islamic Resistance in Iraq” has claimed responsibility. That’s not enough. Kurilla has to attack targets, not news releases.
Advertisement
We’ll get to the question of striking Tehran later, but let’s start with hitting the proxy group that fired the drone on the base known as Tower 22 in Jordan. This won’t be a quick or easy mission.
The first obvious question is how this group might retaliate for our counterstrike. Most of the big Shiite militias have additional capabilities they haven’t yet used against U.S. targets — such as longer-range ballistic missiles and bigger rockets and drones.
The aim of retaliation is to reduce threats to U.S. forces, not increase them. But the United States has a big embassy in Baghdad, and about 2,500 troops in Iraq and 900 in Syria. That’s a lot of targets. Before launching retaliatory strikes, commanders must be sure these Americans are well protected.
The irony of this campaign is that the Biden administration had planned to begin talks with Iraq soon about a possible drawdown of some or all of these troops. Part of the thinking was that the Islamic State, the nominal reason for the U.S. presence, was no longer a major threat, and American soldiers were walking targets.
Advertisement
Now that U.S. forces are under attack, Biden won’t want to look weak by withdrawing them under fire. But he should remember a similar dilemma faced by President John F. Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis.
Then, the United States had been planning to remove outdated liquid-fuel nuclear missiles from Turkey. When Moscow demanded their removal as the price for pulling its missiles out of Cuba, Kennedy couldn’t openly accede to Soviet pressure. But he privately told the Soviets the missiles would be gone soon if they kept quiet — and the crisis was resolved.
What about aiming for the head of the octopus? Striking Iran directly would risk a much wider war. Going to war also requires solid evidence, especially after the Iraq fiasco. Iran’s foreign ministry says that claims of Iranian direction are “baseless accusations,” and U.S. officials don’t appear to have proof of such direct command and control.
Advertisement
But let’s be honest: Whether or not Iran is ordering the strikes, it is supplying the weapons, training and political support for these groups. It’s fighting a classic covert campaign, acting against the United States through proxies — in Iraq, Syria and Yemen — to drive America from the region without taking direct responsibility. Iran’s “death to America” obsession has been steaming since the 1979 revolution, so it won’t end overnight. But Biden can take steps to deter the current, indirect warfare.
Deterrence is about sending signals. Sometimes, that means using military force, but more often it involves credible warning. This administration’s chief warning officer is CIA Director William J. Burns, Mr. “Back Channel,” to quote the title of his memoir. He traveled secretly to Moscow before Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine to warn President Vladimir Putin of the consequences in terms of U.S. and NATO support for Kyiv. His warnings were precisely accurate.
Sending a warning to Tehran is more complicated because the United States must be ready to back up whatever threat it makes. An overt U.S. attack on Iranian territory strikes me as a bad idea, especially with the Middle East already on fire, so I’d keep a Burns back channel on the shelf — for now. But superpowers can take other measures to protect their interests. Iran isn’t alone in its ability to conduct lethal covert action.
Advertisement
The last two cards in Biden’s deck are diplomatic. Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, just returned from a meeting in Thailand with Wang Yi, China’s top foreign policy official. Sullivan asked China to use its influence with Iran to de-escalate tensions. He stressed that Houthi attacks will eventually sink a ship in the Red Sea, which could have a cascading impact on global markets.
Wang seems to understand that China, with its dependence on global sea trade, has more to lose from the Houthis' recklessness than does the United States. Let’s see whether Beijing will use its power to shape global events in a crisis where its interests coincide with Washington’s.
What’s the most reliable pathway to curbing the Iran-fomented violence that followed the Gaza war? It’s to bring that conflict to a quick end. Burns was in Paris last week to broker a deal between Israel and Hamas that would lead to an extended lull in fighting — one that Hamas could call a cease-fire and Israel could call a long pause. Biden needs to use every tool in his kit to achieve that breakthrough.
Once the Gaza war winds down, de-escalation will spread to the other theaters — in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon. Conversely, if Gaza doesn’t stop, the other fires will intensify.
Share Comments
Popular opinions articles
HAND CURATED
- Opinion|Gen Z might be the MAGA movement’s undoingJanuary 28, 2024Opinion|Gen Z might be the MAGA movement’s undoingJanuary 28, 2024
- Opinion|Trump would drain the South Carolina wallets that Haley helped fillJanuary 24, 2024Opinion|Trump would drain the South Carolina wallets that Haley helped fillJanuary 24, 2024
- Opinion|Covid is back, and the U.S. is unprepared for the next bug. Here’s what to do.January 23, 2024Opinion|Covid is back, and the U.S. is unprepared for the next bug. Here’s what to do.January 23, 2024
View 3 more stories Sign up
“Target Tehran” after this past weekend’s drone strike on a U.S. base in northeastern Jordan, thundered Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.). Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) sneered that President Biden would be “a coward unworthy of being commander in chief” unless he attacked Iranian forces and their proxies, inside and outside the country.
Calling for irresponsible actions without bearing responsibility for the outcome is a senatorial “perk,” I guess. Fortunately, Biden is thinking carefully about how to respond to the attack by an Iranian proxy that killed three U.S. soldiers and wounded some 40 others — without, in the process, getting the United States into another open-ended Middle East war.
As the Biden White House weighs options, what thoughts are going through policymakers’ minds? Based on conversations with current and former officials, we can make some guesses about the president’s decision-making. He’s likely to take decisive action, but think hard about the consequences of the option he chooses.
For months, this crisis has been coming toward Biden in slow motion. Iranian-linked groups declared open season on U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria (and, now, Jordan) after the start of the Israel-Gaza war. The U.S. officials count more than 160 attacks since then, more than one a day. The Shiite militias were lucky (or unlucky, in their view) that they didn’t kill an American until this past weekend.
These groups are “undeterred,” to use the antiseptic language of strategists. The Pentagon has retaliated after some attacks, but not forcefully enough. Experts estimate 50,000 to 80,000 Iranian-backed militia fighters operate in Iraq alone. These Shiite militias apparently think the United States is a low-risk target. So, evidently, do the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen who have been firing missiles at ships traveling toward the Red Sea, disrupting international shipping. These calculations must change.
Job No. 1 for the Biden team is “attribution.” It must identify precisely which Iranian proxy launched the deadly drone and determine whether it did so on orders from Tehran. With that information, Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla, the head of U.S. Central Command, can prepare a plan to destroy the group’s ability to kill Americans. The umbrella “Islamic Resistance in Iraq” has claimed responsibility. That’s not enough. Kurilla has to attack targets, not news releases.
We’ll get to the question of striking Tehran later, but let’s start with hitting the proxy group that fired the drone on the base known as Tower 22 in Jordan. This won’t be a quick or easy mission.
The first obvious question is how this group might retaliate for our counterstrike. Most of the big Shiite militias have additional capabilities they haven’t yet used against U.S. targets — such as longer-range ballistic missiles and bigger rockets and drones.
The aim of retaliation is to reduce threats to U.S. forces, not increase them. But the United States has a big embassy in Baghdad, and about 2,500 troops in Iraq and 900 in Syria. That’s a lot of targets. Before launching retaliatory strikes, commanders must be sure these Americans are well protected.
The irony of this campaign is that the Biden administration had planned to begin talks with Iraq soon about a possible drawdown of some or all of these troops. Part of the thinking was that the Islamic State, the nominal reason for the U.S. presence, was no longer a major threat, and American soldiers were walking targets.
Now that U.S. forces are under attack, Biden won’t want to look weak by withdrawing them under fire. But he should remember a similar dilemma faced by President John F. Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis.
Then, the United States had been planning to remove outdated liquid-fuel nuclear missiles from Turkey. When Moscow demanded their removal as the price for pulling its missiles out of Cuba, Kennedy couldn’t openly accede to Soviet pressure. But he privately told the Soviets the missiles would be gone soon if they kept quiet — and the crisis was resolved.
What about aiming for the head of the octopus? Striking Iran directly would risk a much wider war. Going to war also requires solid evidence, especially after the Iraq fiasco. Iran’s foreign ministry says that claims of Iranian direction are “baseless accusations,” and U.S. officials don’t appear to have proof of such direct command and control.
But let’s be honest: Whether or not Iran is ordering the strikes, it is supplying the weapons, training and political support for these groups. It’s fighting a classic covert campaign, acting against the United States through proxies — in Iraq, Syria and Yemen — to drive America from the region without taking direct responsibility. Iran’s “death to America” obsession has been steaming since the 1979 revolution, so it won’t end overnight. But Biden can take steps to deter the current, indirect warfare.
Deterrence is about sending signals. Sometimes, that means using military force, but more often it involves credible warning. This administration’s chief warning officer is CIA Director William J. Burns, Mr. “Back Channel,” to quote the title of his memoir. He traveled secretly to Moscow before Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine to warn President Vladimir Putin of the consequences in terms of U.S. and NATO support for Kyiv. His warnings were precisely accurate.
Sending a warning to Tehran is more complicated because the United States must be ready to back up whatever threat it makes. An overt U.S. attack on Iranian territory strikes me as a bad idea, especially with the Middle East already on fire, so I’d keep a Burns back channel on the shelf — for now. But superpowers can take other measures to protect their interests. Iran isn’t alone in its ability to conduct lethal covert action.
The last two cards in Biden’s deck are diplomatic. Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, just returned from a meeting in Thailand with Wang Yi, China’s top foreign policy official. Sullivan asked China to use its influence with Iran to de-escalate tensions. He stressed that Houthi attacks will eventually sink a ship in the Red Sea, which could have a cascading impact on global markets.
Wang seems to understand that China, with its dependence on global sea trade, has more to lose from the Houthis' recklessness than does the United States. Let’s see whether Beijing will use its power to shape global events in a crisis where its interests coincide with Washington’s.
What’s the most reliable pathway to curbing the Iran-fomented violence that followed the Gaza war? It’s to bring that conflict to a quick end. Burns was in Paris last week to broker a deal between Israel and Hamas that would lead to an extended lull in fighting — one that Hamas could call a cease-fire and Israel could call a long pause. Biden needs to use every tool in his kit to achieve that breakthrough.
Once the Gaza war winds down, de-escalation will spread to the other theaters — in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon. Conversely, if Gaza doesn’t stop, the other fires will intensify.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
