Follow this authorFareed Zakaria's opinions

Follow

Iran is allied to all these groups, which helps it preserve its influence and weight in the region. Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza has provided an ideal opportunity for these forces, because they can claim to be protesting Israel’s actions — and in thus asserting themselves, demonstrating their might and gaining legitimacy.

Ironically, the Biden administration, which has been working hard to prevent these militia attacks from turning into something bigger, now needs to decide whether to itself escalate and respond massively. Biden is under pressure at home from Republicans who will accuse him of looking weak. Senators such as Lindsey Graham (S.C.) are urging him to strike Iran to preserve America’s credibility.

Advertisement

A large U.S. escalation would be a mistake. These militias thrive on conflict with established armies. The Houthis endured nearly a decade of massive Saudi bombardment and came out largely unscathed. As Henry Kissinger noted in a Foreign Affairs essay on Vietnam mere weeks before becoming Richard M. Nixon’s national security adviser, there is a simple rule: “The guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win.” The tragedy of U.S. foreign policy is that having seen the dilemma so clearly, once Kissinger entered government, he got seduced by the need to preserve American credibility and perennial pressure not to look weak. He supported massive military action against the North Vietnamese forces, which ultimately failed. The North won in Vietnam by not losing and the United States lost by not winning.

Iran’s proxies are trying to stir up as much chaos as possible to force the United States and Israel into large-scale strategic blunders, which would among other things spoil a possible normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. The attacks by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq on U.S. forces have a specific goal — pressure the government of Iraq to expel U.S. forces stationed in that country. The group’s militias are the very ones that support the current Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad. In a battle between Washington and these militias, the Baghdad government would have to side with these groups that sustain it in power. This would complete the takeover of Iraq by Iran, symbolized by the expulsion of U.S. troops. And it would further the larger Iranian goal of unraveling the U.S.-built security system in the Persian Gulf.

The Biden administration will have to respond to the attacks on U.S. troops, but it should search for a way to do so that does not involve a major escalation. The Iranians have signaled in several different ways that they are not looking to escalate either.

Advertisement

The most effective response to this broader Iran-backed push against U.S. interests in the region would be to show not that Washington can escalate militarily — which of course it can — but that it can de-escalate politically. That means using the crisis in Gaza to create conditions for longer-term stability by addressing Israel’s need for security and Palestinian aspirations for a state. Success on this front would then make it much easier for not just Saudi but also broader Arab-Israeli reconciliation. That kind of political and diplomatic response would not appease the war hawks in Washington, but it would be the most effective counter to America’s foes.

As Michael Corleone says in that same movie, “Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment.”

Share

Comments

Popular opinions articles

HAND CURATED

View 3 more stories

Sign up

It’s perhaps fitting that the line that best describes U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East over the past 15 years comes from the Godfather movies. In the third part of the series, the aging Michael Corleone has been trying to distance himself from his old mafia businesses and ties. But inevitably crises flare up that demand his attention. “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in,” he cries.

President Biden might be thinking just that as he wonders how to respond to the recent attack on U.S. forces that claimed the lives of three American soldiers in Jordan.

Ever since George W. Bush’s second term, American administrations have been seeking to reduce their exposure to the Middle East. The argument makes logical sense. The United States imports only a tiny amount of oil from the region. Its efforts at regime change and reform in Iraq backfired spectacularly. The most important challenges to the U.S.-led international order come from Russia in Europe and China in Asia. The Middle East is a side show.

But crises come not at times and places of your choosing. And the withdrawal of American power has itself set in play a series of moves that are now shaping the region. As Washington has lost interest in the Middle East, anti-American militias have been gaining strength and influence — from the Houthis to Hezbollah to the Islamic Resistance in Iraq (the umbrella group believed to be responsible for the attack that killed the American troops).

Iran is allied to all these groups, which helps it preserve its influence and weight in the region. Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza has provided an ideal opportunity for these forces, because they can claim to be protesting Israel’s actions — and in thus asserting themselves, demonstrating their might and gaining legitimacy.

Ironically, the Biden administration, which has been working hard to prevent these militia attacks from turning into something bigger, now needs to decide whether to itself escalate and respond massively. Biden is under pressure at home from Republicans who will accuse him of looking weak. Senators such as Lindsey Graham (S.C.) are urging him to strike Iran to preserve America’s credibility.

A large U.S. escalation would be a mistake. These militias thrive on conflict with established armies. The Houthis endured nearly a decade of massive Saudi bombardment and came out largely unscathed. As Henry Kissinger noted in a Foreign Affairs essay on Vietnam mere weeks before becoming Richard M. Nixon’s national security adviser, there is a simple rule: “The guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win.” The tragedy of U.S. foreign policy is that having seen the dilemma so clearly, once Kissinger entered government, he got seduced by the need to preserve American credibility and perennial pressure not to look weak. He supported massive military action against the North Vietnamese forces, which ultimately failed. The North won in Vietnam by not losing and the United States lost by not winning.

Iran’s proxies are trying to stir up as much chaos as possible to force the United States and Israel into large-scale strategic blunders, which would among other things spoil a possible normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. The attacks by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq on U.S. forces have a specific goal — pressure the government of Iraq to expel U.S. forces stationed in that country. The group’s militias are the very ones that support the current Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad. In a battle between Washington and these militias, the Baghdad government would have to side with these groups that sustain it in power. This would complete the takeover of Iraq by Iran, symbolized by the expulsion of U.S. troops. And it would further the larger Iranian goal of unraveling the U.S.-built security system in the Persian Gulf.

The Biden administration will have to respond to the attacks on U.S. troops, but it should search for a way to do so that does not involve a major escalation. The Iranians have signaled in several different ways that they are not looking to escalate either.

The most effective response to this broader Iran-backed push against U.S. interests in the region would be to show not that Washington can escalate militarily — which of course it can — but that it can de-escalate politically. That means using the crisis in Gaza to create conditions for longer-term stability by addressing Israel’s need for security and Palestinian aspirations for a state. Success on this front would then make it much easier for not just Saudi but also broader Arab-Israeli reconciliation. That kind of political and diplomatic response would not appease the war hawks in Washington, but it would be the most effective counter to America’s foes.

As Michael Corleone says in that same movie, “Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment.”

QOSHE - In responding to Iran, the U.S. should take the Godfather’s advice - Fareed Zakaria
menu_open
Columnists Actual . Favourites . Archive
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

In responding to Iran, the U.S. should take the Godfather’s advice

28 23
02.02.2024

Follow this authorFareed Zakaria's opinions

Follow

Iran is allied to all these groups, which helps it preserve its influence and weight in the region. Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza has provided an ideal opportunity for these forces, because they can claim to be protesting Israel’s actions — and in thus asserting themselves, demonstrating their might and gaining legitimacy.

Ironically, the Biden administration, which has been working hard to prevent these militia attacks from turning into something bigger, now needs to decide whether to itself escalate and respond massively. Biden is under pressure at home from Republicans who will accuse him of looking weak. Senators such as Lindsey Graham (S.C.) are urging him to strike Iran to preserve America’s credibility.

Advertisement

A large U.S. escalation would be a mistake. These militias thrive on conflict with established armies. The Houthis endured nearly a decade of massive Saudi bombardment and came out largely unscathed. As Henry Kissinger noted in a Foreign Affairs essay on Vietnam mere weeks before becoming Richard M. Nixon’s national security adviser, there is a simple rule: “The guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win.” The tragedy of U.S. foreign policy is that having seen the dilemma so clearly, once Kissinger entered government, he got seduced by the need to preserve American credibility and perennial pressure not to look weak. He supported massive military action against the North Vietnamese forces, which ultimately failed. The North won in Vietnam by not losing and the United States lost by not winning.

Iran’s proxies are trying to stir up as much chaos as possible to force the United States and Israel into large-scale strategic blunders, which would among other things spoil a possible normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. The attacks by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq on U.S. forces have a specific goal — pressure the government of Iraq to expel U.S. forces stationed in that country. The group’s militias are the very ones that support the current Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad. In a battle between Washington and these militias, the Baghdad government would have to side with these groups that sustain it........

© Washington Post


Get it on Google Play