Maj Gen P K Mallick, VSM (Retd)
The U.S. is now in a dilemma. It has to find the right balance between deterrence and escalation. If the U.S. fails to act decisively it sends a message of weakness that can encourage more attacks.XThe author outlines Biden's Response Options to the Drone Attack and the potential repercussions.
President Joe Biden said that he had decided on a U.S. response to the drone attack on a remote outpost in Jordan on January 29, 2024. He declined to provide further details. It is certain, sooner than later, the response from the U.S. will come. It is a complex situation. Any action will have effects on Iran, Iraq, Israel. Saudi Arabia, militia organisations of Axis of Evil, Houthis and other countries in the region. American interest overall in this region has to be factored in.
The U.S Secretary of State said, “We are not looking for a war with Iran, We are not looking to escalate the conflict in the region. … Obviously, these attacks keep coming. We’ll keep looking at the options. I can’t speak for the supreme leader or what he wants or he doesn’t want. I can tell you what we want. What we want is a stable, secure, prosperous Middle East, and we want these attacks to stop.”
The U.S. is now in a dilemma. It has to find the right balance between deterrence and escalation.
If the U.S. fails to act decisively it sends a message of weakness that can encourage more attacks. If it takes action too forcefully it could cause an escalatory response from Iran and its allies. The U.S. would like to respond forcefully enough to deter Iran’s allies from conducting further attacks on U.S. forces without getting bogged down in another war in the Middle East.
This time will the targets of Houthis in Yemen will also be included?
The U.S. response is likely to be any time soon. A delayed response to the drone attack in Tower 20 would allow potential targets to prepare and give time to move high-value assets like planes and leadership to safe areas.
Meanwhile, emphasis will be given to increase the already high level of intelligence devoted to the Middle East in terms of satellite, drone, cyber and other intelligence assets.
The U.S. should improve force protection measures for its troops across the region. The militias who conducted the attack on Tower 22 had exploited some vulnerabilities in the air defense system at the U.S. base. Based on the lessons learned from any mistakes made at Tower 22 force protection measures would likely be implemented as soon as possible.
What are the options? And how does this work?
Option 1: Strike Iran-allied bases and commanders
The U.S. could mount strikes to degrade militia capabilities for future strikes against militia targets in Iraq, Syria and Yemen that go well beyond the previous tit-for-tat strikes or the current air campaign against the Houthis. A target set would include airstrips, hangars and infrastructure associated with assembling and/or storing such drones, ammunition and fuel storage areas that support them and proxies’ command-and-control centres.
The U.S. can take action that doesn’t amount to continued, futile tit-for-tat strikes. These strikes should be sudden, swift and disproportionate, hitting as wide a range of targets as hard as possible in a limited period of time. They should aim to do as much damage as possible in a short time. Graduated military pressure gives Iran and its proxies time to become familiar with such strikes.
The Pentagon would plan for a campaign with 5-7 days of continuous strikes against proxy targets in Syria and Yemen. After the initial round of strikes, U.S. battle damage assessment should suggest a second round to clean up any missed target sets.
There is a need to coordinate with the Iraqi leadership to expand strikes to their country.
The U.S. can take action against Iranian targets outside Iran, such as targeting its naval vessels operating in support of Yemen’s Houthis or Quds Force personnel in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
Used in the past, this is probably the most obvious choice.
Option 2: Strike Iran
President Biden is now under tremendous pressure from politicians specially from Republicans and former U.S. military officials to hit Iran directly. They are adamant that comprehensive strikes inside Iran itself are the only way to send the message to Tehran.
The Biden administration has been criticised, primarily by Republicans, for not taking strong enough action against the Iran-backed groups for their attacks. Republican lawmakers like US congressman Don Bacon, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sen. Roger Wicker, the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and House Armed Services Chairman Mike Rogers, all have come out with strong statements in favour of direct attack on Iran.
A retired three-star Navy admiral who previously commanded the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf, John Miller, said, “In true Iranian fashion, they’re going to push and push and push, until they sense that they’ve come to a red line. They do that themselves. They do it through their proxies. Well, they crossed the red line. They need to be held to account for that.” He is of the opinion that the U.S. should lead strikes inside Iran that degrade the economic interests of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as well as its ability to ship weapons overseas. The U.S. should put in place sanctions that further cripple Iran’s ability to export oil.
The most effective response is a direct attack on military targets in Iran itself, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) headquarters, which deals with proxy forces in the region. The U.S. should use its tremendous capabilities to neutralise Iranian command and control, severe Iran’s connectivity to its proxy forces and reduce its armament production.
Another target set could be Iranian oil and gas platforms in the Arabian Gulf.
All of this should be accompanied by public and private messaging to Tehran that the U.S. does not want a full- fledged conflict. But the Iranians have to be convinced that the U.S. is serious and willing to retaliate massively if necessary.
This would be a massive escalation. Both the U.S. and Iran do not want to get into a full-scale war. Iran can respond by closing the economically vital Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil and gas flow. This would drive up prices and have a devastating effect on world economies. Certainly, it would damage President Biden’s chances of re-election in the November election.
Option 3: Don’t respond
Given the current tensions in the Middle East, some people in the U.S. establishment argue that it would be irresponsible for Washington to hit Iranian interests now, especially in an election year. The hands of CENTCOM, the part of the US Department of Defence that covers the Middle East, are fully combatting the Houthis’ attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. There will be requests from U.S. allies around the region not to trigger a wider Middle East conflict. But this view is likely to be overlooked.
There is a time factor. Attacks by Iran-backed militias have dramatically increased since 7 October, 2023. Once Israel’s assault on Gaza concludes, tensions in the region may subside. There is pressure in Washington for the US to decrease its military footprint in the Middle East. President Trump had to be persuaded by his military and intelligence chiefs not to pull out all US forces from Syria, where they were helping Kurdish forces stop ISIS from returning. There is a strong possibility that should Trump return to the White House in a year’s time, he would reduce the US presence in Iraq and Syria significantly.
However, this option would entangle the U.S. in yet another open-ended conflict in the Middle East.
Option 3: Cyberattacks and covert action against the Iranian network across the region
US Cyber Command and the National Security Agency working closely with their counterparts at the Central Intelligence Agency should carry out a significant cyberattack on Iran. These agencies often, with good reason, hold back on their full offensive capability to keep secret the technology behind their cyber tools.
The CIA should ramp up efforts to create, fund and operationalise U.S. proxies against Iran.
Growing discontentment among the population because of poor governance and economic mismanagement would help disseminating American narrative especially through social media.
The U.S. may carry out covert operations to disrupt and severe the communications, finance and supply networks that have enabled Iran to construct its team of proxies across the region. These actions cannot substitute for direct military action. But they are a necessary component of any realistic strategy to take down Iran’s network of regional proxies.
Option 4: Increased efforts to fight Information Warfare
Iran and its partners have an aggressive and effective messaging apparatus that spreads propaganda in the region and around the world. It has some reach into America’s own media and think tank debates.
The U.S. must do a better job to combat these false claims directly. They should put forward a credible narrative of Iranian interference that highlights the destructive role Tehran has played in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Gaza.
Option 5: Steps to shore up and reinforce allies in the region
Any covert campaign will have to rely on America’s partners in the region like Jordan, Iraq in addition to Syrian Kurdish and Arab partners. Israel would definitely play a major role in covert action.
Beyond intelligence cooperation, the U.S. should take noticeable steps to reinforce America’s regional partners. Deployment of additional air defence systems or surging fighter jets for joint exercises can send important positive signals. Visits by the Defence Secretary and top American military commanders would help.
Options three, four and five can be carried out simultaneously with either option or option two.
Some experts believe that the U.S. military retaliation against Iran risks derailing the Biden administration’s efforts to find a diplomatic solution to end the Israel-Hamas conflict and de-escalate tensions with Iran.
The U.S has to do a lot of tightrope walking. The combination of the Israel-Hamas war and Iran and its proxies are frustrating the U.S.’s intention to maintain a smaller, lower-profile footprint in the Middle East and focus security efforts elsewhere, especially against China.
The U.S has unpleasant choices. Withdraw forces to Iran and ISIS’s benefit or reinforce the U.S. presence and aggressively retaliate at risk of larger war in the Middle East or sustain the present course weathering constant attacks that are bound to cause more casualties eventually.
The author is an Indian Army Veteran.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of Financial Express Online. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.
No comments:
Post a Comment