EBN-President Joe Biden has committed to delivering a robust reaction to the recent lethal assault on a US military base in Jordan. The key dilemma for the US lies in striking the appropriate balance between deterrence and escalation. A failure to respond decisively may convey a perception of vulnerability, potentially fueling further attacks. On the other hand, an excessively forceful response could provoke an escalation from Iran and its allies.
So what are the options? And how does this work?
The United States possesses a range of pre-prepared military options readily available. These are formulated by the Department of Defense, incorporating intelligence insights from the CIA and the National Security Agency. Subsequently, these options are presented to the US National Security Council and decision-makers, with the president ultimately approving and finalizing the chosen course of action.
Option 1: Strike Iran-allied bases and commanders
This is a clear choice, previously employed. Numerous bases, weapons depots, and training facilities in Iraq and Syria are owned by various Iran-backed militias.
Although trained, equipped, and funded by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force, they may not be directly controlled by them.
The US is aware of their locations and identities, allowing for precision-guided missile strikes on these bases. However, this strategy has not effectively deterred the militias, who have executed over 170 attacks on US bases in the region since October 7.
Responsibility for the attack has been claimed by a group calling itself the Islamic Resistance in Iraq.
This is an umbrella term for a number of Iran-backed militias, some of which, ironically, have previously fought on the same side as the US against their common enemy in the region: Islamic State. They share common aims with Iran, namely to drive the US military from Iraq and Syria and to punish the US for its military support of Israel.
Option 2: Strike Iran
This would be a massive escalation and not something the US would consider lightly.
It is highly unlikely, although not inconceivable, that the US retaliation would include hitting targets on Iranian sovereign territory.
Neither Washington nor Tehran want to get into a full-scale war and both have said so. Iran’s response could well include attempting to close the economically vital Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil and gas flow. This would have a devastating effect on world economies, driving up prices and almost certainly damaging President Biden’s chances of re-election in November.
One alternative is to go after senior IRGC commanders in Iraq or Syria.
There is a precedent for this, the most notable being four years ago when then-President Donald Trump ordered a drone strike that killed the IRGC Quds Force commander Qassim Suleimani in Baghdad in 2020. But this too would be seen as an escalation, and could well trigger a dangerous response from Tehran.
Option 3: Don’t respond
Some in the US establishment argue that hitting Iranian interests in the current Middle East tensions, especially in an election year, would be irresponsible.
CENTCOM, responsible for the Middle East in the US Department of Defense, is already engaged in countering Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.
It faces pressure from regional allies to avoid triggering a broader Middle East conflict. However, others assert that the existing deterrence policy has failed, and Washington’s reluctance to retaliate strongly has emboldened attackers. Timing is a crucial factor; some contend that.
