As of: February 4, 2024, 8:25 a.m
From: Foreign Policy
Comments
Press
Split
The attack on US troops in Jordan could drag the US into an unwanted conflict.
But how does President Joe Biden react?
The simmering conflict between the USA and Iran is threatening to escalate.
The main scenes of skirmishes are Iraq, Jordan and Syria
US President Joe Biden faces difficult decisions: withdraw US troops or retaliate?
This article is available for the first time in German - it was first published by
Foreign Policy
magazine on January 29, 2024 .
Washington, DC - Three US soldiers were killed by a drone from an Iran-aligned militia near the Syrian border in northeastern Jordan a week ago.
U.S. troops are in the area to support the ongoing campaign against the Islamic State while monitoring Iranian activity along the land corridor between Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
Tensions in the Middle East are escalating.
The frequency of attacks on U.S. troops in the region by Iran-aligned militias poses a greater risk to American soldiers than they have experienced in years.
With over 100 reported attacks since the war began in Israel, it is time to ask whether the risks of maintaining these outposts outweigh their remaining benefits.
A US Army soldier deployed in Baghdad, the capital of Iraq.
(Archive image) © imago stock&people
Attacks on US soldiers could lead to escalation with Iran
After the recent tragedy, there are new calls for a confrontation with Iran to restore deterrence and show strength.
Washington could be drawn into an avoidable conflict with an opportunistic adversary whose violent tactics can all too easily be employed when U.S. troops are stationed right next to Iran amid a tangle of pro-Iranian militias largely uninfluenced by Baghdad.
The deployment of troops does not increase the security of the USA, but only endangers it further.
Washington is prepared to downplay the risks to US soldiers in Iraq and Syria.
The weekend attack on a base in Jordan used to support operations in Syria should be a wake-up call.
True, most attacks are intended more to inflame tempers than to kill Americans.
But the threshold of escalation could always be exceeded.
Because the militias cannot be sure that their attacks will not cause casualties.
This is due both to the types of weapons - from mortars to drones of varying sophistication - fired at US forces and the inconsistent competence of those who fire them.
These attacks have already left scores of American military personnel with traumatic brain injuries, killed one American contractor, and wounded six other U.S. service members stationed in Syria in March last year.
Attacks in Iraq illustrate the general problem facing the US military
This precarious situation illustrates the general problem faced by U.S. military forces deployed on the front lines.
The further forward and closer to enemy territory they are, the more vulnerable they are to attack.
In some cases, of course, troops are deliberately used in this way and in relatively small numbers as a tripwire.
In Iraq, this is explicitly not their job, but the forward-deployed troops could still function as a tripwire.
My news
Ukraine speaks of “flying garbage”: Australia wanted to supply Kiev with F/A-18 fighter jets
“Balloon burst”: Strack-Zimmermann clearly rejects Taurus ring exchange
New strategy in the Ukraine war: Drone offensive should put Putin's troops in their place
Russia sees plan behind NATO maneuvers: diplomat attacks Deutschlandlesen
1 hour ago
Putin's troops are confident of victory - and complacent - in the Ukraine war
Attack on Russia: Failed drone attack sparks fire at huge oil refinery
Foreign Policy Logo © ForeignPolicy.com
This is a serious problem whether the militias' attacks on U.S. forces are directed by Tehran or not.
If they are controlled by Iran, there is a risk of miscalculation.
And if not, then these militias are like the tail wagging the dog, acting independently of Iran for their own local interests while exposing Tehran to the risk of an escalation it does not want.
US soldiers are still fighting against Islamic State troops in Iraq
The purpose of tripwires in strategic thinking is a deterrent: a signal to an adversary that they will certainly kill Americans in the event of an invasion and therefore must expect an almost certain - and potentially devastating - response.
But U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria are not designed to serve that purpose.
Then why are they there?
They continue to provide critical support to the Iraqi security forces, and approximately 2,500 U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq.
In 2022, U.S. Central Command, working closely with local forces, conducted 313 operations against the Islamic State, resulting in the elimination of 466 fighters in Syria and at least 220 in Iraq.
The dismantling of the Islamic State continued in 2023 with the support of US advisors.
Policymakers in the White House and Pentagon believe the U.S. presence in Iraq and Syria is essential to defeating the Islamic State.
So the armed forces serve a purpose in the country and any decision to withdraw must be carefully considered.
Escalation between USA and Iran in Jordan has a history
The U.S. military is in Iraq as guests of the government in Baghdad and is acting under the 2008 U.S.-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement. This agreement was initiated during the Trump administration and signed by the Biden administration in July The strategic dialogue concluded in 2021 was confirmed.
Despite public statements by Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani indicating a reassessment of the US troop presence and non-binding withdrawal decisions by the Iraqi Parliament, the formal request for a continued US troop presence in an advisory capacity is being made behind closed doors without specifying a timetable maintained.
But a cycle of escalation had already begun before the latest attack in Jordan.
A US airstrike in Baghdad in early January killed Mushtaq Jawad Kazim al-Jawari, also known as Abu Taqwa, a Harakat al-Nujaba commander, along with an unnamed person.
The targeted killing came amid strained relations between Washington and Baghdad.
As a first warning to Iraq, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin directly addressed attacks by Kataib Hezbollah and Harakat al-Nujaba on US troops in a conversation with Sudani in December 2023.
Joe Biden will probably respond with attacks in Iraq and Syria
This warning went unheeded and made it clear that Sudani has limited control over the militias, even if these militias lead armed brigades officially subordinate to him.
The United States has even less influence on the ground.
The U.S. held off for three months as attacks increased, and there is some logic to targeting militia leaders who fire rockets at U.S. troops.
Now Joe Biden's administration is likely to respond with violent attacks in Iraq and Syria.
This will further deteriorate already tense relations between Washington and Baghdad and put Sudani in a difficult position.
He is unable to contain Iran-aligned Iraqi militias that are targeting U.S. troops.
However, restoring deterrence in a cycle of mutual abuse is ultimately ineffective.
While it could lead to a short-term reassessment by the militias, new attacks are likely to occur as time passes or tensions in the Middle East further escalate.
Without the express consent and cooperation of the government in Baghdad, it is not possible for 2,500 US soldiers to support Iraq against the Islamic State and at the same time contain the militias allied with Iran.
The same applies to the approximately 900 US troops in Syria, who rely on the support of the US military presence in Iraq and neighboring countries.
The time for US troop increases and active combat missions is over.
The global threat from the Islamic State has declined significantly, with attacks down by more than half compared to 2022.
The operational benefit that U.S. troops provide to Iraqi partners is not worth the risk of escalation if U.S. troops are killed.
Some might argue that a military withdrawal from Iraq would benefit Iran and its proxies, and they would be right.
However, by providing them with troops to target, the US is inadvertently confirming their raison d'être while perpetuating the risk of an unwanted war with Iran.
US should start withdrawing troops from Iraq
The United States should begin preparing to withdraw the majority of its troops from Iraq to deprive the militias of targets and reduce the risk that the militias will trigger a major war with the United States by successfully injecting U.S. soldiers into it Take sight.
This process will take time, but if we delay it, the risks of remaining will only increase.
Operation Inherent Resolve should be replaced in the near future with a significantly reduced group of advisers and special forces focused on the Iraq Security Cooperation Office in Baghdad.
A limited Title 10 mission under U.S. Central Command can help train and share intelligence with Iraq's top elite units.
However, the process of withdrawal must begin and should lead to a normalized US diplomatic mission in the country.
If U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria and those who support them become nothing more than a constant lightning rod for violence, no one but the militias wins.
Adam Weinstein is deputy director of the Middle East Program at the Quincy Institute.
To the author
Steven Simon
is a professor of Middle Eastern studies at the Jackson School of International Relations at the University of Washington.
He is the author of Grand Delusion: The Rise and Fall of American Ambition in the Middle East.
Twitter: @sns_1239
We are currently testing machine translations. This article was automatically translated from English into German.
This article was first published in English in the magazine “ForeignPolicy.com” on January 29, 2024 - as part of a cooperation, it is now also available in translation to readers of the IPPEN.MEDIA portals.