Middle East Tinderbox

Over the weekend, an Iranian backed militia group used an explosives laden one-way drone to attack an American military outpost on the Jordanian border near Syria and Iraq known as Tower 22. Three American service members were killed and approximately 36 were injured, some seriously. The United States has a series of small bases scattered throughout parts of Syria and Iraq. Originally, these forces were there to counter the spread of the Islamic State (ISIS). They remain in order to keep ISIS from filling a vacuum and also to counter the presence of destabilizing Iranian militias. In response to this weekend’s attack, President Joe Biden declared that the United States “will hold all those responsible to account” and that “we shall respond.” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said that, “We will take all necessary actions to defend the United States, our troops and our interests.” In order to knowledgeably speculate as to the nature of that response, it is necessary to put the entire geo-political atmosphere into context. 

As the old ballpark selling point went, “you can’t tell the players without a score card.” So it is in the Middle East, there are a lot of different players with differing motives. Sometimes it can be hard to keep track of them all. Here are some of the key players.

On 7 October 2023 Hamas terrorists attacked Israel killing about 1200 Israelis and foreign nationals and taking roughly 240 hostages. Since then, Israel invaded Gaza to destroy Hamas and recover the hostages. To date, it is estimated that over 25,000 Gazans have died — mostly civilians. Hamas still holds about 100 Israeli hostages. The fighting continues with no clear end in sight. Indeed, the Israeli war aims are unclear beyond the mission to “destroy Hamas.” The Israeli government has yet to articulate when the war is over and what victory looks like. More specifically, what is the long term solution to reconstituting Gaza and returning its citizens to a humanitarian way of life while preserving Israel’s security? The international community, including the United States, consistently pushed for, and still persists in pushing for, a two-state solution. That is, Israel and a sovereign Palestinian state. The current Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unequivocally rejects that idea. 

The United States and other nations continue to try and find a realistic path to establishing a peaceful and stable Palestinian state as it slowly brings Gulf states into the discussion and encourages Saudi Arabia to establish normalized relations with Israel. Recently, the Saudi national security adviser publicly declared Saudi Arabia’s determination to work with Israel as long as Israel commits to the establishment of a Palestinian state through practical steps, even if the actual formation of that state is in the future. 

Enter Iran. Iran is interested in a de-stabilized region in order to pursue its own interests. In the Iranian leadership, there is a yearning to reestablish the Persian Empire — or in current parlance, the Shia crescent that stretches from Yemen to Lebanon and includes Bahrain, Iran, western Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Azerbaijan. (As you recall, there are two main Muslim sects — the Sunnis and the Shia. The Shia are the minority in the larger Muslim world. Most Iranians are Shia and most Saudis are Sunni.) Not coincidentally, the main Iranian backed militias include Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. Other smaller groups exist in Iraq and Syria. 

The most important players in the region are Saudi Arabia and Iran. They are competing not only for regional dominance in a diplomatic sense, but also on religious, economic and military grounds. Add to the mix that Iran is a major ally of Russia and is supplying them with drones and missiles to use in their fight against Ukraine. Russia would encourage Iranian adventurism in order to distract the U.S. from its commitments in Eastern Europe to aid Ukraine. Additionally, Iran views Israel as an existential threat. The Hamas-Israel war creates the conditions for Iran to further inflame regional passions and to make its presence felt on the world stage by creating chaos throughout the region. While Iran claims that it does not control the militia groups surrounding Israel or creating havoc on shipping lanes around the Arabian peninsula, all evidence clearly shows that they do. Intelligence, military equipment and training all come from Iran. It may be true that Iran does not control them on a tactical or operational level (when or where to attack), but there is no doubt that Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis or any of the other groups would not be conducting attacks without the overall green light from Iran.

The United States and our allies know that Iran is the main threat to peace in the region. That said, international efforts are focused on keeping the war in Gaza contained. There is no desire on anyone’s part, and I would include Iran in that calculation, to see a wide-spread full scale war in the region. But, it is getting close. Iran and its proxies are trying to push as hard as they can to disrupt the region, the world’s supply chains and thus world economies in order to serve their own interests and to distract their citizens from the fact that their own economy is in dire circumstances. Internal issues may drive Iranian decisions as a way to also distract the many people in Iran, primarily under the leadership of women and girls, that are pushing back against the theocracy and its oppressive measures. 

Since 7 October 2023, the numbers of attacks on U.S. military forces in Iraq and Syria have steadily increased. The attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and Arabian Sea are also steadily increasing. The president ordered significant U.S. naval and air forces into the region to keep the Gaza war contained. It is not in the international community’s interest to see a major war in the Middle East. Those forward deployed forces have been responding to attacks on the American bases and international shipping at sea with proportional responses. Missiles and manned aircraft have attacked militia weapons production facilities, radars, launch sites and the like — both in response to attacks and, in Yemen, preemptively to prevent attacks. They are meant to deter future attacks and to warn Iran that the U.S. will respond militarily to their mischief. It is not working.

The U.S., alone or in concert with our allies that have also deployed forces to the region, must now respond directly against Iran for the attack on Tower 22. Iran must pay a price for their unchecked attacks. The thorny question becomes what is the right level of response and does it include a direct attack on targets in Iran? The planners in the Pentagon have been working overtime to supply the president a range of options. It is probable that economic sanctions and diplomatic measures are under consideration to warn the Iranians from further attacks. It is also highly likely that covert operations inside Iran, probably combined with cyber operations, will create some level of pain for the Iranian leadership. We can also expect some, as they say in the Pentagon, “kinetic responses”. In other words, ordnance on targets. At this point, it would be surprising to see a military attack on Iranian territory. It is conceivable, as we have done in the past, that Iranian forces at sea will be targeted. Depending on the scale, such an attack would make it clear to the Iranian leadership that there is a price to be paid for attacking Americans and it will degrade their ability to collect intelligence and/or carry out their own military actions. The hard part is to decide on a course of action that is unmistakable as to the source and that it causes real pain to the Iranians, without crossing the line into open warfare. No easy task.

There are hotheads on both sides of the equation that argue for going for the jugular. Given the circumstances in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Western Pacific, it is dangerous to play with fire while sitting in the middle of a tinderbox that could go up in flames at any moment. A measured response is needed. It may take more than one go around. What we do know is that it will take a clear head and a steady hand on the helm to navigate these tricky waters.