Iran's Militias v United States: World War 3?
US Servicemen Have Been Killed In A Drone Strike. What Next?
Sunday’s news item came with a certain air of inevitability. If the conflict that has become the Israeli-Hamas war continued, and if Iran’s efforts to expand that conflict via its terror and militia proxies continued, eventually, US servicemen in the Middle East were going to wind up dead.
Three US troops have been killed and dozens injured in a drone attack on a US base near Jordan's border with Syria.
US President Joe Biden said that the attack was carried out by "radical Iran-backed militant groups".
This is the first time US soldiers have been killed in a strike in the region after Hamas's 7 October attack on Israel.
Jordan says the attack took place in Syria, not inside Jordan.
According to military sources, the attack took place at “Tower 22” inside Jordan.
The troops were killed at Tower 22 in northeastern Jordan, a small outpost close to the border with Syria that houses Air Force and Army personnel. U.S. Central Command said in a statement the attack was carried out by a one-way attack drone that “impacted on a base.”
Such groups have attacked U.S. troops at least 158 times since Oct. 17, using drones, rockets, and ballistic missiles, according to U.S. officials. While most have been unsuccessful, a U.S. contractor died of a heart attack while sheltering in place in one instance, and a U.S. service member was critically wounded in another.
The drone attack was both the first attack reported inside Jordan, and was the first to report US fatalities.
The White House—also predictably—threatened to hold those responsible “to account”, in a time and manner of the US choosing.
President Joe Biden vowed on Sunday to hold those responsible for the attack “to account,” saying that while facts are still being gathered, “We know it was carried out by radical Iran-backed militant groups operating in Syria and Iraq.”
“These service members embodied the very best of our nation: Unwavering in their bravery. Unflinching in their duty. Unbending in their commitment to our country — risking their own safety for the safety of their fellow Americans, and our allies and partners with whom we stand in the fight against terrorism. … [H]ave no doubt – we will hold all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner our choosing.”
All of which begs the question: what will the United States do in response?
Some measure of retaliatory strike seems inevitable, but where will the US strike, and how hard? How much damage will the US seek to inflict and on whom?
48 hours have not made the right answers to those questions any clearer or easier to divine, and that uncertainty itself will surely further speculation that the world is sleepwalking into World War 3.
There is, of course, no surprise that the mood in Washington, DC, is for swift and overwhelming response. The US has been engaged in reprisals already—most notably the strikes on Houthi missile depots, in an effort to degrade Houthi capacity to menace Red Sea shipping—when various Iranian-backed militias have threatened US military assets in the region.
The U.S. has conducted retaliatory and self-defense airstrikes against the Iranian-backed militias that have attacked American and coalition personnel in the region as recently as last week when it struck Kataib Hezbollah, an Iraqi group responsible for many of the attacks on American troops, according to the U.S. military. The attack came as talks are set to begin over a final withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq.
“These service members embodied the very best of our nation: Unwavering in their bravery. Unflinching in their duty. Unbending in their commitment to our country—risking their own safety for the safety of their fellow Americans, and our allies and partners with whom we stand in the fight against terrorism,” Biden said. “It is a fight we will not cease.”
CENTCOM said the identities of the service members would be withheld until 24 hours after their next of kin have been notified.
“The President and I will not tolerate attacks on American forces, and we will take all necessary actions to defend the United States, our troops, and our interests,” Austin said.
Regardless of one’s view of US military involvement in the Middle East, there is little room to doubt that protecting that military once it is there is of paramount importance. Even writers who staunchly oppose US military deployments overseas recognize the need for defending US forces when they are overseas.
First and foremost, the Biden Administration has the responsibility to protect our troops stationed oversees. They’ve failed to uphold that sacred duty. For several months, American soldiers have been sitting ducks in the Middle East, facing attack after attack of all shapes and sizes. In order to effectively deter an enemy, that enemy needs to believe that it’s not worth their time to experiment with the FAFO meme graph. Sunday’s tragedy was the inevitable result of a policy of drawing a line in the sand and failing to defend that line.
Now, there’s a separate conversation to be had about the wisdom (or the lack thereof) of having thousands of American troops deployed for years on end in some third world hell hole.
Full disclosure: my personal stance on world conflict is always to pursue peace and not war. That is true for the war in Ukraine, it is true between Israel and Hamas, and it is true across the Middle East. When it comes to discussing these conflicts from a factual basis, however, my focus is more on the ramifications of both US engagement and disengagement in the larger dynamics of these conflicts. Accordingly, I generally refrain from declaring a position on what is and is not a proper use of US power, and what is and is not an actual US interest, in an effort to minimize the impact of my own personal biases on my assessments.
The criticism exists, however, and even among those who might be in favor of US troop deployments to the Middle East, that the United States has been derelict in protecting its own soldiers.
What did the US Army do to protect our bases subjected to attacks of this kind?
For a long time, the Army did nothing. Then it sent the obsolete rapid fire last resort gun called C-RAM. In Syria the Army threw in the old Avenger system. So far as is known, it has not been effective. Only at the al-Assad base was the Patriot system installed, but it has not been enough to stop missiles and drones ramming into the base, causing "numerous" (CENTCOM's word) casualties, mainly traumatic brain damage to troops.
Sending our troops to man foreign, poorly protected, bases is unacceptable. It is an invitation to turn our bases into hostage zones. The only sporadic and inadequate US response to the constant attacks demonstrates that the White House and Defense Department could care less about our soldiers.
It is not that we were without alternatives, at least in providing protection to our soldiers. Why, for example, are we sending the new NASAMS system to Ukraine but not providing it to our soldiers? Does Ukraine have priority over American lives?
This is indeed a debate this country should have, and the current regime should very much be forced to answer every awkward question about the quality and sufficiency of defenses provided for US servicemen in the Middle East. Troops must be protected or brought home to where they are safe, regardless of what US interests in the Middle East might require.
In the meantime, however, a fair amount of attention will be paid—and should be paid—to the coming US reprisal attacks.
That there will be reprisals is a foregone conclusion. Not only has Joe Biden promised there will be reprisals, but the political optics of such a moment demand it.
Against whom will the reprisals come? That is a somewhat murkier question, because it is not at all clear from the extant reporting which Iranian-backed militia sent the drone(s). A somewhat nebulous “Islamic Resistance” has taken credit for the attacks, but that does little to clarify who precisely did what.
The pro-Iranian “Islamic Resistance” in Iraq claimed on January 28 that it had attacked five locations in the region: Erbil in Iraq, as well as Shaddadi, Tanf, and Rukban in Syria. US forces were present in four of these locations.
However, the “Islamic Resistance In Iraq1” appears to be a recent collaboration among existing militias in Iraq, appearing shortly after the Hamas attacks on October 7th.
Name: Al-Muqawama al-Islamiyah fi al-Iraq (the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, or IRI). An umbrella term used to describe the operations of all Iran-backed militias in Iraq, including strikes into Syria during the October 2023 conflict between Israel and Hamas.
Type of movement: Kinetic military operations, both national and transnational. Anti-U.S. targets in Iraq and Syria, stemming from the U.S. role in the Gaza crisis.
History: During the October 2023 conflict between Israel and Hamas, Iraqi muqawama (resistance) militias attacked U.S. troops based in Iraq and Syria. They have claimed the following attacks under the IRI brand:
October 17, 2023: drone attack on Harir Air Base in Iraqi Kurdistan. This attack was initially claimed by Tashkil al-Waritheen; soon thereafter, a superseding claim was issued by the IRI brand and the Waritheen claim was removed in deference. One Qasef-2K drone was used in the strike.
Twenty subsequent attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria as of October 30, 2023.
The umbrella organization means that the entity taking the credit is distinct from the actual militia carried out the actual drone strike on Tower 22. Which part of the “Islamic Resistance” actually piloted the drone? As of this writing, I cannot say.
Based on what is being reported about the “Islamic Resistance In Iraq”, the one common thread among the militias is that they are all supported (or believed to be supported) by Iran.
Unsurprisingly, many in Congress are now calling for strikes on Iran as reprisal.
Senator Cornyn is not alone:
Republicans accused Biden of letting American forces become sitting ducks, waiting for the day when a drone or missile would evade base defenses. They say that day came on Sunday, when a single one-way attack drone struck near base barracks early in the morning.
In response, they say Biden must strike Iran.
"He left our troops as sitting ducks," said Republican U.S. Senator Tom Cotton. "The only answer to these attacks must be devastating military retaliation against Iran's terrorist forces, both in Iran and across the Middle East."
The Republican who leads the U.S. military oversight committee in the House of Representatives, Representative Mike Rogers, also called for action against Tehran.
"It's long past time for President Biden to finally hold the terrorist Iranian regime and their extremist proxies accountable for the attacks they've carried out," Rogers said.
Former President Donald Trump, who hopes to face off against Biden in this year's presidential election, portrayed the attack as a "consequence of Joe Biden's weakness and surrender."
Across the aisle, Democrats are expressing concerns about US capacity to contain the Israeli-Hamas War to Gaza.
One Democrat openly voiced concern that Biden's strategy of containing the Israel-Hamas conflict to Gaza was failing.
"As we see now, it is spiraling out of control. It's beginning to emerge as a regional war, and unfortunately the United States and our troops are in harms way," Democratic Representative Barbara Lee said, renewing calls for a ceasefire in the Israel-Palestinian war.
At the same time, Iran is denying any involvement in the drone strike on Tower 22.
Iran's mission to the United Nations said in a statement on Monday that Tehran was not involved in the attack.
"Iran had no connection and had nothing to do with the attack on the U.S. base," the mission said in a statement published by the state news agency IRNA.
It added: "There is a conflict between U.S. forces and resistance groups in the region, which reciprocate retaliatory attacks."
Indeed, Iran largely denies even supporting the militias who carried out the actual drone strike.
Iran denied US and British accusations that it supported militant groups blamed for the strike.
Nasser Kanaani, Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, said it was "not involved in the decision making of resistance groups" in how they chose to "defend Palestinians or their own countries".
Iran's intelligence minister Esmail Khatib said that regional armed groups aligned with Iran respond to "American aggressors" at their own discretion.
While the likelihood that Iran does not support the militias in question with weapons and materiel is remote, the extent to which Iran is dictating their particular attacks and strategies is largely unknown—or at least not publicly reported.
What level of involvement is sufficiently direct to justify attacking Iran proper? Have we proved or can we prove Iran has reached that level? Again, these are problematic questions to answer, with the level of information available.
Yet without hard evidence to bolster the argument for striking Iran, there is a strong reason to refrain: Ukraine: The United States has gone to great lengths to support Ukraine in its war against Russia.
Since the war began, the Biden administration and the U.S. Congress have directed more than $75 billion in assistance to Ukraine, which includes humanitarian, financial, and military support, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German research institute. (This figure does not include all war-related U.S. spending, such as aid to allies.) The historic sums are helping a broad set of Ukrainian people and institutions, including refugees, law enforcement, and independent radio broadcasters, though most of the aid has been military-related. Dozens of other countries, including most members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union, are also providing large aid packages to Ukraine.
If the United States attacks Iran for providing drones to the “Islamic Resistance in Iraq“, does this provide Russia with a sufficient casus belli to attack NATO in response for NATO supporting Ukraine? One cannot dismiss that possibility out of hand, nor the potential risk for destabilizing more than just the Middle East.
Moreover, attacking Iran itself invites an ongoing cycle of escalation, if not outright war with Iran.
Democratic Representative Seth Moulton, who served four tours in Iraq as a Marine, urged against Republican calls for war, saying "deterrence is hard; war is worse.”
"To the chicken hawks calling for war with Iran, you're playing into the enemy's hands—and I’d like to see you send your sons and daughters to fight," Moulton said. "We must have an effective, strategic response on our terms and our timeline."
Experts caution that any strikes against Iranian forces inside Iran could force Tehran to respond forcefully, escalating the situation in a way that could drag the United States into a major Middle East war.
Jonathan Lord, director of the Middle East security program at the Center for a New American Security, said striking directly inside Iran would raise questions for Tehran about regime survival.
"When you do things overtly you represent a major escalation for the Iranians," Lord said.
Intriguingly, the world may not be prepared for that extreme of an escalation of conflict in the Middle East.
When the drone attack occurred on Sunday, January 28th, oil prices had been trending up as of the previous Friday, although markets had not yet had an opportunity to respond to US casualties.
However, the immediate market response to the drone attack and US casualties has been for oil prices to retreat.
Global oil markets have not yet priced in all out war with Iran—and appear to be signalling that a war with Iran is not inevitable.
Are oil traders being prescient in this, or merely pig-headed?
At the fundamental level, one outcome is certain: there will be an escalation by the United States, in the form of a reprisal attack somewhere.
Less certain is what will come from that escalation.
Will that attack be effective at discouraging future drone attacks against US military assets in the Middle East? That would unquestionably be the goal of a response that is, as Congressman Moulton has said, an “effective, strategic response.” If the inevitable reprisal attack failed to discourage future attacks upon US military bases in the region, an argument potentially can be made that the reprisal was neither effective nor strategic.
What manner of reprisal attack would be “effective” and “strategic”? What will be necessary to dissuade Iran’s terror proxies and various Shi’a militias from threatening US military assets?
Is an attack on a target within Iran proper a minimum level of intensity to obtain an effective and strategic response, or an unnecessary escalation risking all out war?
American politicians, as is customary in such moments, have no end of opinions as to what the obviously correct answers to these questions are. Equally customary is their lack of substantive thinking to inform those opinions. While Congressman Moulton has a point when he argues for a an “effective, strategic, response”, he has not been able to state with clarity what that “effective, strategic, response” would look like.
By the same token, Senator Tom Cotton claims “the only answer” is to attack targets within Iran, and if he has a substantive geopolitical analysis to justify that conclusion, it is not being reported within the corporate media. Mike Rogers’ call to hold Iran “accountable” for the acts of its terror proxies also has not been blessed with any reporting of the analytical case of events unfolding in the Middle East to establish that an attack on Iran would hold the regime in Tehran “accountable” for anything.
Neither side has said how their preferred modality of response would limit the conflict and contain it to within the Middle East—a conspicuous absence in their rhetoric given the reality that the violence in the Middle East is becoming anything but contained.
Will this escalating cycle of conflict in the Middle East lead to all out global war? Are we on the glide path to World War Three?
At present, the answer to such questions remains unknown. An all out global war certainly could come from an ongoing escalating cycle of violence, but it is not an inevitability—at least, not yet.
This much we know: there will be a reprisal, and the immediate future for the Middle East is more war and less peace. Beyond that, all the rest is mere speculation.
Malik, H., and M. Knights. The Washington Institute. Profile: The Islamic Resistance in Iraq. 30 Oct. 2023, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/profile-islamic-resistance-iraq.
Great read.
Pretty clear to me our country is being run by bumbling maniacs.
“Sleepwalking into World War 3” is a really good way to characterize this, Peter. I get the sense that no one but the CIA knows what’s actually going on, which factions are involved, or what the Plan is. Unsettling, to say the least.
Amongst all the geopolitical speculations, one I’ve heard is that China is supporting Iran in this mess. The argument is that if the US has its hands full with the Mideast, China can dominate the Pacific, and maybe attack Taiwan. In your previous columns, you have given good reasons why China does not have the capability to do this. But what is your assessment now? Would serious escalation of US involvement in the Mideast be enough to tip the scale for China all the way to success against Taiwan? Do you suspect that this is China’s overt plan?