The recent attack on US troops in the Middle East has heightened pressure on President Joe Biden and his administration. This incident marks the first time American soldiers have been killed by enemy fire since the start of the Israel-Gaza war. The attack has forced the US to confront the difficult decision of how and where to strike Iran in response. While Washington desires to send a powerful message to Tehran, it also wants to avoid escalating the situation further with a series of retaliatory strikes and counterstrikes.
The death of US servicemen in this low-intensity, high-risk battlefield seemed inevitable given the previous attacks on US military installations in Iraq and Syria by Iran-backed militias. President Biden made it clear that the responsibility for this attack lies with “radical Iran-backed militant groups operating in Syria and Iraq.” However, Iran denies any involvement and claims that “resistance groups” make their own decisions and actions regarding support for Palestine.
Iran has cultivated alliances with various non-state actors in the region, training and arming them through its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). These relationships have only grown stronger in recent years, particularly during the Israel-Gaza conflict. Nonetheless, each actor has its own agency and motivations. In Iraq, many of the attacks have been carried out by groups aligned within the umbrella group known as the Islamic Resistance in Iraq. Complicating matters further, some of these groups are also part of Iraq’s armed forces.
The US has responded to these attacks by targeting Iranian assets, including training bases and weapons depots. However, the current situation calls for a more significant strike that will have a greater impact on Iran. This is crucial not only to demonstrate Washington’s resolve in the region but also to address political adversaries’ claims that President Biden is soft on Iran. With the looming elections, the administration faces immense challenges in navigating this crisis and making the right decision. Analysts warn that all actions come with consequences, and striking Iran directly poses the highest risk.
If the US does not impose costs on Iranian leaders responsible for these attacks, they are likely to continue unabated. Four years ago, the US carried out a highly sensitive operation by assassinating top IRGC commander Qasem Soleimani, who was instrumental in forging the “axis of resistance.” The US needs a similar deterrent this time, but Iran has been cautious in retaliating due to domestic pressures. However, Iran did recently target an alleged Mossad base in Iraqi Kurdistan as a form of indirect response.
The US must not only take action but also demonstrate successful outcomes. However, its endeavor is further complicated by the ongoing Israel-Gaza war and escalating tensions in the Red Sea shipping lanes. The US and its allies are already leading a military campaign against Yemen’s Houthis, but their attacks on ships passing through this critical trade passage have persisted. While Western intelligence estimates suggest some losses for the Houthis, they view themselves as victorious in their battles against Saudi-led airstrikes.
Iran and its allies have exploited this crisis to showcase themselves as supporters of the Palestinian cause. Meanwhile, the US finds itself entangled in multiple conflicts and struggles to contain them. The situation in the Middle East remains volatile, and the US must navigate carefully to prevent further escalation while protecting its interests and allies in the region.
