.png)
Nelly Atsmon
The unprecedented terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israel on October 7th have set off heightened tensions in the Middle East, possibly leading to a significant conflict between the United States and Iran. The ongoing illicit bombardment of Gaza by Israel, resulting in numerous Palestinian casualties, has brought the region closer to a major escalation. Over the past four months, violence has intensified, involving pro-Palestinian, Iran-backed militias across the Red Sea, Iraq,Syria, and Lebanon.
Recently, there was a militia attack on a US base in Jordan, resulting in the deaths of three American soldiers and injuries to many others, which has been directly attributed to Iran by President Joe Biden. This incident raises concerns about whether a point of no return has been reached, indicating the potential for a larger conflict.
Iran denies responsibility, but skepticism in Washington persists due to a history of Iranian support for militia proxies. There is widespread belief that Iran's strategic goal is to expel American troops from bases in Iraq, Syria, and the Gulf, ultimately terminating the US presence in the region. It is also thought that the events of October 7th and Israel's response provide an opportunity for Iran to advance this objective.
The recent attack in Jordan prompts speculation on whether Iran and its allies intentionally escalated the situation or miscalculated. This distinction is crucial, as it will influence the scale and nature of the anticipated US response, which President Biden has vowed to deliver.
Potential retaliation options include limiting attacks to militia bases or broader punitive measures targeting Iranian assets and territory. Political considerations, intensified by pressure on Biden to respond forcefully, may play a significant role in the decision-making process.
US retaliations thus far:
A high-ranking commander of the Iran-backed militia in Iraq, Harakat al-Nujaba, was killed by the US military last month. After the group attacked US forces, Washington justified the assault as "self-defence." According to experts, one of the most powerful factions in the IRI is Harakat al-Nujaba.
In reaction to the rebels supported by Iran attacking ships in the Red Sea, a vital maritime
channel for international trade, the US and UK have also coordinated coordinated strikes
against Houthi targets in Yemen. The Houthis claim that Israel has been bombarding the Gaza
Strip since it began its fight against Hamas in October, and this is why they are attacking trade
lines.
However, there is a significant risk that comes with military retaliation against Iran, including disastrous consequences such as prolonging the Gaza conflict, triggering a Hezbollah attack on Israel, and destabilizing various countries in the region. Additionally, there could be a knock-on effect of the potential division among Western democracies in supporting or opposing the US, thus benefiting China's geopolitical ambitions and or even implicitly justifying Russia's aggression in Ukraine.
It seems the US is well aware of these risks, as on the 29th of January, Monday, the US
National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told NBC’s Today Show
“We are not looking for a war with Iran,” But he added: “We’ll keep looking at the options . . . We want these attacks to stop.”
However, Republicans in Congress have called for direct strikes on Iran in response. “Hit Iran now. Hit them hard,” senator Lindsey Graham wrote on X, while senator John Cornyn wrote: “Target Tehran.” Given the fast-approaching US elections, it is not unrealistic that this conflict could further escalate if the Republicans, who advocate for a more aggressive foreign policy towards Iran were to win.
Comments