What Biden's Military Options Against Iran Look Like

President Joe Biden has vowed to retaliate after the deaths of three U.S. personnel in a drone strike on a Syria border post in Jordan marked the first fatalities of a months-long campaign by Iran-backed militias lashing out in protest of Israel's ongoing offensive nearly 300 miles away in Gaza.

As top U.S. officials draw up plans for how and when to strike back, former senior military officials with firsthand experience of conflict in the Middle East outline to Newsweek what may come next, while warning of the potential consequences of miscalculations that could spark the very kind of all-out war both Washington and Tehran say they seek to avoid.

Joseph Votel, a retired U.S. Army general who previously served as head of U.S. Central Command and U.S. Special Operations Forces Command, told Newsweek that U.S. officials now are likely "analyzing and evaluating leadership, command and control and supply chain targets associated with the specific militia that orchestrated this attack."

The attack, conducted Sunday at the Tower 22 base that sits along a U.S.-enforced demilitarized zone between Jordan and Syria, was claimed by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq. This coalition of Iran-backed "Axis of Resistance" militias, which is believed to include the likes of the Nujaba Movement, Kataib Hezbollah, Kataib Sayyed al-Shuhada, Ashab al-Kahf and others, has defied previous U.S. warnings and strikes, pressing on with new operations even after the stern threats issued in the wake of the deadly drone attack in Jordan.

In addition to considering ramping up operations against these non-state actors, however, the Biden administration was also likely "looking at direct Iranian targets like IRGC-QF [Islamic Revolutionary Guard-Quds Force] leaders, key facilitators as well as command and control and logistic nodes," according to Votel.

"The targeting analysis is probably also at least considering targets that are more directly related to Iran—like perhaps some of their maritime assets or possibly coastal targets," Votel, now a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Middle East Institute, said. "The decision to strike in Iran is a very big one, but I would expect that they are looking at a wide variety of options."

Votel's tenure as CENTCOM commander coincided with a drastic flux in the course of U.S.-Iran relations that nearly erupted into a major confrontation. The dynamic between the two longtime rivals improved significantly with the advent of a multilateral nuclear deal that went into action months before Votel's appointment in March 2016 under then-President Barack Obama, only for tensions to boil over after then-President Donald Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018.

By 2019, Washington and Tehran were openly exchanging threats with one another. Just months after Vogel's retirement that March, and just as U.S. and Iran's shared foe, the Islamic State militant group (ISIS), was declared defeated, the Trump administration put into place a plan to strike Iran directly after the IRGC shot down an unmanned RQ-4A spy drone over the Strait of Hormuz in July.

While the plans were called off within the final hour of preparations, targets included air defense systems, as Newsweek reported at the time.

When Trump did order a high-profile strike against Iran amid worsening clashes between U.S. forces and Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria in January 2020, he chose to take out IRGC-QF commander Major General Qassem Soleimani, alongside Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces paramilitary coalition deputy chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, at Baghdad International Airport. Iran responded with a barrage of missile strikes against U.S. positions in Iraq, injuring more than 100.

Soleimani's successor and current IRGC-QF leader, Brigadier General Esmail Qaani, vowed to enact further revenge, but the path toward escalation largely subsided, even as tensions continued to fester. But a surprise attack launched last October by the Palestinian Hamas movement against Israel and the subsequent, ongoing Israeli offensive has once again inflamed the region, this time on multiple fronts, each with the growing capacity to ignite a wider conflict.

Iran has denied any direct involvement in militia attacks, with Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Nasser Kanaani telling reporters Monday that any claims to the contrary were "baseless."

"The Islamic Republic of Iran does not welcome the expansion of clashes in the region," Kanani said, "nor does it intervene in the decisions made by the resistance groups on how to support the Palestinian nation or fend off themselves and the people of their countries against any act of aggression and occupation."

Newsweek has reached out to the Iranian Mission to the United Nations and the Nujaba Movement for comment.

Votel, for his part, said that whichever targets may be chosen by the Biden administration in response to the recent drone attack "must convey an unambiguous appreciation that we hold Iran directly responsible for this attack and the actions of their so-called 'axis of resistance.'"

"This is done by striking something that Iran values and the loss of which causes significant effects and impact," Votel said. "The selection of the target(s) must also convey that Iran and its proxies have crossed a significant red line with the United States—the killing of American service members—which carries more strategic consequences."

But he also asserted that such action should take into consideration the potential for escalation as "we don't want an open war with Iran," which "would not be in any nation's interest."

"What is important is that our strikes are also accompanied by a synchronized information campaign as well as economic and diplomatic actions that collectively put the greatest amount of punishment and pressure on Iran," Votel said.

"Deterrence is never solely a product of military action or capability—the best deterrence is always a combination of all the elements of national power, not solely relying on military options is the best way to control escalation," he added. "Iran will be more effectively deterred when they know we are willing to pull 'all' the levers available to us."

Another senior U.S. official with experience dealing with Iran under the previous administration to weigh in on Biden's options is former Defense Secretary Mark Esper. Esper discussed the issue early Monday on CNN in remarks also shared with Newsweek by his office.

"I think what you want to present is a range of options that begin with striking Iranian targets outside Iran and escalating up a ladder toward targets in Iran," Esper said. "My view, at this point, is the starting point is attacking IRGC, that's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, personnel and sites in Iraq and Syria."

But he too emphasized that, wherever the response falls on the escalation ladder, "I think you need to balance that with diplomacy," especially with partners in the region and beyond, including Arab and European nations.

So far, isolated strikes against increasingly active "Axis of Resistance" militias both in Iraq and Syria, as well as in Yemen, where the Ansar Allah, or Houthi, movement is waging a campaign of attacks against merchant vessels in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden in response to the Israel-Hamas war, do not appear to have significantly deterred enemy action.

Paul Eaton, a retired U.S. Army major general who led the efforts to train Iraqi troops in the immediate aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, warned that any U.S. military action threatened to only further stoke the flames raging throughout the Middle East and put more U.S. personnel at risk, especially if it lacks a broader strategic vision.

"Striking Iran directly would be disastrous," Eaton told Newsweek. "And even cyclical, retaliatory strikes—similar to what we've seen in Iraq, Syria and Yemen over the past few weeks—absent diplomacy could drag the United States into a situation that could put even more lives at risk."

Eaton, now a senior adviser at the VoteVets political action committee, asserted that Biden's top priority right now was to halt the slide toward an all-out war.

"Managing escalatory potential is of utmost importance right now," Eaton said.
"As it stands, continuous military action without diplomacy worsens an already volatile situation and heightens the risk of an outbreak of broader regional conflict."

Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.