President Biden appears to be planning such a response. And we assume that it will be done quickly but not hastily, and will be guided by intelligence agencies. Intelligence services are needed to identify the responsible faction within Iraq’s Islamic Resistance, an Iranian-backed Shiite militia that claimed credit for the attack. A tough response is needed to send a signal of support to Jordan, the host country whose sovereignty has been blatantly violated.
But the administration should also use this opportunity to take stock of recent U.S. deterrence efforts against Iran, the group’s ultimate backer. And the record is mixed. Biden’s team has so far been credited with helping prevent a full-scale regional conflict, the worst-case scenario that many feared after the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre in Israel. Deserves praise. It crossed the Israeli-Lebanese border, partly by deploying a large navy to deter Iran’s proxy Hezbollah, and partly by persuading Israel not to launch a first strike.
But the United States is locked in an inconclusive battle with the Yemen-based Houthis, whose airstrikes have failed to stop the militia’s missile and drone attacks on shipping around the world. The attack in Jordan was the latest in a series of about 150 airstrikes since Oct. 7 targeting 2,500 U.S. ground troops in Iraq and 900 in Syria to contain Islamic State militants. .
This does not mean that the time has come to attack Iranian assets inside Iran. As some, including some Republicans, like to label the president as soft on the Islamic Republic. It would be unprecedented in the long history of conflict between the United States and Iran, and although it would not necessarily be decisive, it would mark a dramatic escalation. A better option would be to violently attack Iran directly, but outside its own territory, while simultaneously pursuing proxy militias. This could be accomplished by attacking Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration should take all necessary steps to strengthen the defense of U.S. forces in the region and correct the combination of technical flaws and human error that allowed drones to penetrate U.S. military defenses in Jordan.
Whatever course of retaliation the administration chooses, it would be best for Biden to keep Congressional leaders informed in advance, in the spirit of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. This is not a plea for prior congressional approval, which may not be possible in the current polarized political climate. Rather, it is a recognition that the political sustainability of US operations now and in the future is partly a function of transparency and legitimacy.
Perhaps most importantly, the Biden administration is rethinking its overall strategy toward Iran now that previous attempts to engage with the Islamic Republic through negotiations to contain its nuclear program have stalled. That means you need to do it. The Iranian government appears determined to limit direct military conflict with the United States and Israel for the time being, but it does so as a matter of prudence rather than ideology. On the contrary, Iran is clearly working decisively with Russia to support Russia’s war effort in Ukraine, which threatens America’s core interests in Europe. The nuclear program is always in the background, and any restraint shown by the Islamic Republic in today’s fighting could be aimed at buying time for an ultimate breakthrough in nuclear weapons.
Creative new efforts to counter the regime’s sources of financial support and favor domestic opposition could help put further pressure on a regime that is privately not as strong or popular as it appears. The October 7 terrorist attack, carried out by Islamic extremist militias painstakingly supported and sponsored by Iran, brought a likely reversal to a region that the Biden administration had considered relatively calm, if not stable. brought about irreversible changes. U.S. policy requires a corresponding paradigm shift.