Overseas Conflict Escalates: Mounting Tensions Between Iran and the US
Middle East tensions have risen, causing concerns for a wider regional war. Some have called for the US to conduct strikes within Iran. This would have consequences that we may be unwilling to pay.
On January 28, the Islamic Resistance of Iraq, a group that US officials claim is controlled by the Iranian Republican Guard Corps (IRGC), launched a drone and struck a US base in Jordan. The strike led to the deaths of three American soldiers: SPC Kennedy Sanders, SPC Breonna Moffett, and SGT William J. Rivers. The attack occurred at Tower 22, a US military outpost in northeastern Jordan near the Syrian border. The base, which houses 350 US Army and Air Force personnel, is part of a supply network for the US garrison of al-Tanf in Syria. The drone strike was the third in six months on the base and the latest in a series of over 150 attacks on US troops in the Middle East since the start of the Israel-Hamas war on October 7, 2023. The drone attack on Tower 22 has been claimed by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, a coalition of militias supported by Iran. While Iran has denied involvement, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has stated that Iran is behind the attack and other attacks by Houthi militants on ships in the region. This claim of Iranian involvement has acted as the casus belli for US politicians who call for strikes within Iran and not just its proxies.
US RESPONSE
Following the drone attack, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that the US response would be "multilayered", "phased", and "last for a long time."
US officials have identified Iran-backed militias as being responsible for the attack. US politicians have also given their statements, with Senator Lindsey Graham calling for direct action and launching strikes within Iran itself.
“When the Biden Administration says ‘don’t’, the Iranians ‘do’. The Biden Administration’s rhetoric is falling on deaf ears in Iran. Their policy of deterrence against Iran has failed miserably. There have been over 100 attacks against U.S. forces in the region. Iran is undeterred.
“I am sending my condolences to the families of our fallen heroes in Jordan. I am also wishing a full recovery to those injured. Our forces in Jordan and Syria are there to protect the American homeland and to provide stability in a troubled region. Their service and sacrifice will always be appreciated. They are true heroes.
“The Biden Administration can take out all the Iranian proxies they like, but it will not deter Iranian aggression. I am calling on the Biden Administration to strike targets of significance inside Iran, not only as reprisal for the killing of our forces, but as deterrence against future aggression.
“The only thing the Iranian regime understands is force. Until they pay a price with their infrastructure and their personnel, the attacks on U.S. troops will continue.
“Secretary Austin’s efforts to deter aggression against our forces in the region has failed miserably. I’ve long since lost confidence in the Biden national security team to deter Iran. If they do not change their policies now, more American service members in the region will pay the price.
“Hit Iran now. Hit them hard.”
In response, President Biden green-lit a series of airstrikes within Iraq and Syria. The first strikes began in Syria and targeted facilities used by suspected IRGC-backed militia groups. The strikes then transitioned to Iraq, where more facilities and bases were bombed. Casualties during this strike are unconfirmed, and the US intends to continue its airstrikes in the region.
IRANIAN PROXIES
When asked during a press briefing if Iran knew of the drone attack on US bases and if any evidence could be presented, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin stated, "I don't know" and that "It doesn't really matter." Secretary Austin explained that these groups are funded and trained by Iran (explicitly referring to the IRGC), which, despite Iran officially denying involvement in the drone attack, many US officials (including the president) lay a measure of blame on Iran.
While Iran maintains that it was not involved, there is validity and precedent to the claim that Iran funds a myriad of Islamic groups in the region. However, some analysts contest how much control Iran has over these proxy groups and that their involvement is mostly through training and funding not planning. Historically, Iran's first proxy in the Middle East was Hezbollah, a Shiite movement founded in the early 1980s with military and financial support from the IRGC. More recently, Iran has used these proxies to disrupt and challenge US presence in the Middle East.
IRANIAN ARMED FORCES
Overall, the Iranian military makes up for its technological disadvantage by having a vast pool of manpower to use in any potential war. Iran has an estimated 610,000 active military personnel, 350,000 reservists, and 220,000 paramilitaries. An estimated 41 million Iranian citizens of military age are eligible to be drafted. Late Cold War-era tanks, armor personnel carriers, and artillery support their ground forces. Iran's number of vehicles is also limited, as is its manufacturing capability to replace any vehicles lost in a long war of attrition. The Iranian Air Force has several jets and helicopters, although, their aircraft inventory lacks the modern updates found in the latest generations of aircraft found in the US arsenal. The Iranian Navy lacks any major sophisticated vessels used in modern navies today, having only frigates and patrol vessels. Iran utilizes its limited naval capabilities by swarming larger vessels, though as seen during a skirmish with US naval vessels in 1988 during Operation Praying Mantis, this tactic was ineffective at causing significant damage to the US naval presence.
THE COST OF WAR: INVASION
If the US were to launch strikes within Iran as US politicians have called for, it would light a spark in the Middle East and plunge the US into a major regional war. Iran and its proxies would immediately take direct action against US bases and target US naval vessels and trade ships utilizing tactics similar to Houthis, who have targeted ships in the region. Iran also has access to ballistic missiles, which they would use to strike US bases and naval vessels. US bases that serve as logistical nodes would be under constant threat, making assembling a force to invade even more difficult. Two countries that would have once served as a staging ground for invasion are no longer in control of the US; Afghanistan, after the US withdrawal, is now fully controlled by the Taliban, and Iraq has formed a closer relationship with Iran with calls for US troops to leave only growing. Unless the US would be willing to launch a new invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, the only option left would be a naval invasion.
This presents another significant military challenge; the geography of Iran only allows for one area for invasion, the Strait of Hormuz. Part of what made the Normandy D-Day landings successful was just how much territory the nazis had to defend allowing for the allies to maintain an element of surprise. As the defenders of a naval invasion, Iran would only need to defend one or two possible areas. This allows Iran to consolidate their forces and mount an effective defense making a naval invasion costly even if they fail to repel any US landing. In the event of a successful naval invasion of the Iranian coast, US troops would be slowed by the almost entirely mountainous terrain of Iran, making massive armored formations to break through defenses almost impossible. The US Air Force would also struggle to maintain air superiority to assist US troops; while Iran lacks sophisticated aircraft, it still has anti-air capabilities.
.jpg){kind=link}
Much of what wins wars comes down to the will of the populace. Both Iran and the US have major internal political divisions. However, the reaction to a war could have wildly different reactions. The US, which is already failing to meet its recruitment goals in the military, would find that our current manpower is insufficient to mount an invasion of this scale. The draft may be initiated if recruitment does not increase at the war's outset. This could have a significant ripple effect from both sides of the political aisle as young men on both sides would predictably be unwilling to fight another war in the Middle East. The sheer cost in American lives would be at such levels not seen since Vietnam, a cost that Americans at home may not be willing to pay even if the US won every battle and marched into Tehran. While Iran has faced major social strife among its younger population, if faced with a US invasion, it could galvanize the youth to defend their nation. This could unite the country under one banner against a common enemy, possibly creating a more stable nation. The act of a US invasion could reignite Islamic fundamentalism among the Iranian youth who have trended towards secularism. Invading US troops would most likely find not a people to liberate but an actively hostile population determined to resist a US occupation.
If the US were to launch strikes within Iran, as some politicians have called for, it could lead to a major regional war in the Middle East. The cost to American lives would be extremely high, and the US could face challenges in maintaining public support for the war at home. The situation in the Middle East is complex and fraught with potential dangers as tensions remain high. We must consider our next moves carefully, as any escalation could lead to a costly and protracted conflict. In the end, the question of who would win in a war between the US and Iran is irrelevant; the question that US officials and voters must ask themselves is whether winning a war with Iran is even worth the cost.
SYRIA AND IRAQ REACTION
In response to the US strikes, Iranian-backed militia groups launched more suicidal drones at US bases in the region. Starting on February 7th, these strikes targeted not only US bases as well as an essential oil field in Syria. These strikes came after a US airstrike in Baghdad, killing a Kata'ib Hezbollah commander. US officials stated that the commander planned and coordinated the drone attack in Jordan that killed US servicemembers. Kata'ib Hezbollah has announced that they will suspend future attacks against US forces to avoid "embarrassing” the Iraqi government.
The Syrian military has been actively engaging in defensive measures in response to recent attacks. On February 9th, Syrian air defenses shot down Israeli missiles launched at the Damascus countryside. The Syrian army reported a second attack less than a day later. The Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned the attack, stating that "Syria condemns this blatant American violation, and it categorically rejects all the pretexts and lies promoted by the American administration to justify this attack."
The Iraqi response to the attacks has been one of condemnation and concern. The Iraqi military spokesperson, Yahya Rasool, has called the US strikes a "violation" of Iraqi sovereignty and warned that they would have "disastrous consequences" for the region. Iraqi officials have also claimed that at least 16 people, including civilians, were killed because of the strikes, and the country's prime minister has said that the strikes will impact "the security and stability of Iraq and the region." This comes amid growing calls from factions within the Iraqi government to officially call for an end to US troop presence in Iraq.
I'm not American nor live there; just an overseas subscriber to this publication. You really seem to know what you're talking about, even more evident from the way you respond to comments. It would be great if more Americans could read what you have to say.
A few months ago I watched a ten-part documentary about the Silk Road produced around 2017. There was a deep dive into Iran. What struck me was the point you make, there are a lot of young people. Many were shown skateboarding with their version of the hip-hop culture but they are still Iranians. A war with Iran would be disastrous. It would be Vietnam on steroids. I stupidly didn't oppose the Iraq invasion. Colin Powell seemed so trustworthy. And Condoleezza Rice, I admired her and still do, but I hope she has given up her Neo-Con beliefs focusing only on battles on the court as co-owner of a basketball team. I will never vote for Nikki Haley or any warmonger. Let Lindsay Graham and the rest of them put on battle gear and fight.
Just saw that ships were hit by Syria. Any takes on this? I cannot believe we might be on the verge of a world war and we have no idea who is running the executive branch. We are sitting ducks.