Moving from defense to deterrence with Iran

Biden needs to move from reactive tactics to a pro-active strategy that shapes the future of US involvement in the Middle East

It was just a matter of time before an attack by Iranian proxies killed Americans.

Iran-backed militants have hit American military facilities in Iraq and Syria more than 160 times since the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, and the handful of U.S. pinprick strikes in response, mostly on the weapons depots of the groups responsible, weren’t likely to put an end to the barrage.

“We are in a strange situation where we have substituted defense for deterrence. Allowing hundreds of attacks against our forces without a meaningful retaliation has established a world in which Iran and its proxies understand that there is a level of unprecedented aggression that can be conducted without any consequence," Norman Roule, former National Intelligence Manager for Iran tells me.

Not only, he says, does it put U.S. personnel at daily risk, “our regional partners can reasonably ask that if the U.S. tolerates such attacks on its personnel, why should they believe our claims that we will stand with them if attacked?"

The drone attack on a U.S. base in Jordan that killed three American servicemen, the first fatal attack on U.S. forces in the Middle East since October 7, seems to have ended the game of whack-a-mole. The question now is not just about what President Biden will do to respond, but about the cascade of consequences that follow.

“It’s all about protocols,” says retired Major General James “Spider” Marks. During the Yom Kippur War or the Cold War, he recalls, “everyone knew the limits to what they could do."

“There were levels of acceptable behavior,” Marks says. “Today, that doesn't happen. Everybody's willing to push. We're in fact, trying to establish what those protocols are.”

The Iranians, he says, are “loving it.” Tehran’s claim that its proxies “do not take orders” from Iran is a convenient argument that preserves some sense of deniability. The militias do act independently. But they are still Iranian puppets, even if Iranian generals aren’t constantly pulling the puppet strings. Each attack, backed by Iranian financial and military support, asserts Iran’s regional dominance - an arrangement that gives Iran a green light to support terrorist groups and not be held accountable. That is the equation Washington has to change.

President Biden’s next moves need the precision of a surgeon and the wisdom of an oracle: a blend of strategic finesse and unflinching resolve that neutralizes Iran and its network of proxies without getting into an all-out war.

Biden has all but ruled out a direct strike inside Iran, which carries the risk of escalating into a broader conflict that could destabilize the region further and possibly drag the U.S. into another prolonged engagement in the Middle East.

Calls from a growing chorus of hardline Republicans, like Senator Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton, and John Cornyn, demanding strikes inside Iran may sound crowd-pleasing, especially in an election year. But even President Trump, who made a bold 'Godfather'-esque move to eliminate General Qassem Soleimani, demurred on a direct attack on Iran while in office.

Still, the U.S. needs to hit Iran where it hurts. A response perceived as too weak could embolden Iran and its proxies to keep pressing to see how far they can go. That will only lead to more frequent and severe attacks against U.S. interests and allies in the region. Biden needs to send a clear message: mess with the bull, and you get the horns, but he needs to do it without turning the arena into a bullfight.

Marks says the best way to deter Iran would be to focus on defanging the proxy networks by dismantling their infrastructure and disrupting their supply chains. It’s an approach akin to removing a tumor with a scalpel – precise and deliberate without harming the surrounding tissue.

“We lost three service members and 30 were injured,” says Marks. “Whoever did that needs to suffer greatly for a long time. The only sanctuary that the proxy should assume they have is inside the borders of Iran.”

Roule, the former national intelligence manager for Iran, agrees a strategy of simply degrading Iran’s proxy capacity “will not achieve deterrence.” He says a bipartisan, multilateral campaign is needed to “destroy every Houthi missile, radar, drone, explosive boat, and naval mine site that can be found,” along with any Iranian weapons transshipment sites in East Africa.

Then, Roule says, the coalition should go after Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s Quds Force, the elite clandestine wing of the IRGC responsible primarily for Iran’s foreign operations.

“The Quds Force has only one purpose: to spread Iran’s revolutionary ideals using militias and terrorism. It is a state actor that performs like a terrorist group,” he says. “By allowing such a group to exist and operate, the US and the international community have allowed Iran to sow the seeds of multiple terrorist events and undermined the security of fragile countries. Until we treat Quds Force officials abroad like terrorists, the organization’s violence will continue to spread.”

There are a host of other options that thread the needle between force and diplomacy: from covert action to cyber attacks to diplomatic endeavors like reviving the Iran deal, negotiating a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, or steering the Israel-Palestine conflict towards a peaceful horizon. Renewed diplomacy might not bring immediate resolution, but could lay the groundwork for long-term stability.

Between some-3,400 troops and other U.S. personnel across the Middle East, there is no shortage of American targets. Given the risks to U.S. troops and the shifting dynamics in the region, Biden might consider a gradual withdrawal. It would be a decisive move that minimizes direct targets for Iran-backed militias and reduces the risk of escalation. However, this might cede influence in the region to Iran and its proxies.

Biden’s choices are not just about the immediate response but about the endgame. Coming into office, his administration was criticized for signaling a declining interest in the Middle East in favor of focusing on the Asia-Pacific. Biden now has an opportunity to shape the future trajectory of U.S. involvement in the region in a way that moves from reactive tactics to proactive strategy, and pen a new chapter that ends the Middle Eastern narrative of endless conflict.