In the wake of the deadly attack on a US military base in Jordan, President Joe Biden faces the difficult task of formulating a response that strikes the right balance between deterrence and escalation. Failing to act decisively risks projecting weakness, while acting too forcefully could trigger an escalatory response from Iran and its allies. So what are the options available to the US? And how does the decision-making process work?
The US will have several “on-the-shelf” military options to choose from, which have been prepared by the Department of Defense in collaboration with intelligence agencies such as the CIA and the National Security Agency. These options are presented to the National Security Council and policymakers, with the president ultimately making the final decision. One possible response is conducting precision-guided missile strikes on Iran-backed militia bases, training depots, and weapons stores in Iraq and Syria. These militias are funded and supported by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force, although they may not be directly controlled by them. However, repeated missile strikes have failed to deter the militias, who have carried out over 170 attacks on US bases in the region since October 7th.
An alternative approach would be to target senior IRGC commanders in Iraq or Syria, as seen in the case of the drone strike that killed Qassim Suleimani, the former IRGC Quds Force commander, in Baghdad in 2020. Yet, this option carries the risk of further escalation and a potentially dangerous response from Tehran. It is also worth noting that hitting targets on Iranian sovereign territory is highly unlikely, as both the US and Iran have expressed their desire to avoid a full-scale war.
Another factor to consider is Iran’s capacity to respond. Iran could attempt to close the economically vital Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of the world’s oil and gas flows. Such a move would have devastating consequences for global economies, leading to increased prices and potentially impacting President Biden’s chances of re-election in November.
However, there are varying opinions within the US establishment regarding the appropriate response. Some argue that targeting Iranian interests in the current tense climate of the Middle East, especially in an election year, would be irresponsible. With ongoing conflicts in the region, including the Houthis’ attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, there are concerns that further military engagement could set off a wider Middle East conflict. Conversely, proponents of a more assertive approach argue that the US policy of deterrence has failed thus far, with attacks on US bases intensifying due to perceived US reluctance to respond forcefully.
Timing is also a critical factor. While attacks by Iran-backed militias pre-date the recent Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza, they have significantly increased since October 7th. Once the Gaza conflict concludes, tensions in the region may subside, although Israeli authorities caution that this resolution may be months away. Furthermore, there are calls within Washington to decrease the US military presence in the Middle East. The possibility of former President Trump returning to office and potentially reducing the US presence in Iraq and Syria adds another layer of uncertainty to the situation, potentially aligning with Iran’s objectives.
In conclusion, President Biden and his administration face a complex decision-making process in responding to the Jordan base attack. Balancing deterrence and escalation while considering the potential consequences on regional stability, global economies, and domestic politics will be paramount. Striking the right response is crucial not only for immediate security concerns but also for long-term strategic considerations in the Middle East.
