US Considers Robust Response to Deadly Drone Attack in Jordan
Biden Administration Weighs Options After Attack on Service Members
The United States is carefully evaluating a robust response to the deadly drone attack in Jordan that claimed the lives of American service members and injured others on Sunday. Government officials revealed that the US is exercising caution in crafting its retaliation plan, aiming for effectiveness without provoking a regional war.
Pressure Mounts on Biden to Deter Future Attacks
President Joe Biden faces mounting pressure to adopt a decisive response that will deter future attacks. Iran-backed militants have persistently targeted US military facilities in Iraq and Syria, with over 160 attacks recorded since October. Numerous Republican lawmakers advocate for direct action inside Iran to send a clear message.
Balancing Deterrence and De-escalation
The Biden administration is tasked with the challenging mission of countering the drone strike – the deadliest attack on US forces in the region since the Afghanistan withdrawal – without inadvertently triggering a regional conflict. Previous US retaliatory strikes in Iraq and Syria have failed to deter the militants, who have injured over 120 US service personnel across the region.
Potential Response Scenarios
The US government is considering various response options, including targeted strikes on militant groups in Iraq, Syria, or both countries. Additionally, the leadership of regional militias may face consequences. In January, the US targeted a senior member of Harakat al-Nujaba, an Iranian proxy implicated in attacks on US forces. Offensive cyberattacks also emerged as a potential strategy.
Preserving Element of Surprise
US officials maintain discretion regarding the drone’s origin and the militants responsible for the attack. This calculated approach aims to preserve an element of surprise when the US retaliates. Kataib Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy group, appears to have supported the strike, but the US government emphasizes that the intention is not to be overly specific.
Avoiding Wider Conflict
Despite the severity of the attack, a direct strike on Iran remains an unlikely option. The Biden administration is adamant about avoiding a wider conflict in the Middle East and has repeatedly stated that it does not seek war with Iran. Each action taken by President Biden has been designed to de-escalate tensions and prevent further escalation.
Iran’s Involvement and Escalation Assessment
While Iran bears ultimate responsibility due to its support for proxy groups, there is no evidence suggesting that Iran explicitly directed or intended the deadly attack as a deliberate escalation against the US. The Iranian government denies involvement, and US officials believe the incident resembles previous attacks by Iran-backed militants, albeit with tragic consequences due to the timing and location of the strike.
Challenges in Proportionality and Perception
If the US attempts to de-escalate through proportionate and limited retaliatory strikes, it risks being perceived as weak by Iran and its proxies. This could create an incentive for adversaries to repeatedly approach the red line, testing the limits of US tolerance.
Iran’s Regional Influence and Investment
Iran has strategically invested in regional proxies, such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, and militant groups in Iraq and Syria. This investment has enabled Iran to expand its influence in the Middle East and pressure the US to withdraw its military presence. Iran has witnessed regional protests against the US and Israel, strengthened ties with Russia and China, and gained support for ending the US military presence in Iraq.
Deterrence and Escalation Fear
The Biden administration’s messaging emphasizes the fear of escalation, leading some experts to believe that the US has inadvertently deterred itself from taking decisive action. This cautious approach may have emboldened adversaries to push the boundaries and challenge US resolve.