Two countries, seven locations, 85 targets and more than 125 ‘precision bombs’. Less than a week after three American soldiers were killed in an attack on their small army post in Jordan, the United States carried out its previously announced retaliation on Friday evening. As far as is known, the attacks killed a total of 39 people, possibly including civilians.
Around 9 p.m. Dutch time, American bombers, accompanied by fighter aircraft, carried out several air strikes for half an hour on three locations in Iraq and four in Syria. The Centcom military headquarters stated that the Quds Brigade of the paramilitary Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) and militias “affiliated” with that elite unit were mainly targeted. More bombings could follow in the coming days. “Our response started today. It will continue at times and places of our choosing,” President Joe Biden said in a statement.
In Iraq and Syria, pro-Iranian militias have been regularly carrying out attacks on American bases and army posts for years. Although it remains unclear to what extent they are controlled, paid and supplied by Tehran, Washington sees them as pawns of Iran. Since the outbreak of the latest Gaza war between Israel and Hamas in October, the frequency of attacks has increased. According to the Pentagon, at least 150 attacks have been carried out on American posts in Iraq and Syria since the October 7 Hamas terror wave.
First American deaths
The US usually manages to intercept all incoming kamikaze drones, mortars and missiles. During the night from Saturday to Sunday last weekend, a hit suddenly hit the little-known American outpost Tower 22, in the remote northeast of Jordan. A drone equipped with explosives managed to defy anti-aircraft defenses – probably by flying close behind a returning American drone. The attack left three Americans dead and 41 soldiers injured.
Also read
American retaliation will require tailor-made measures
Although a military contractor was killed in a militia attack in Syria last March, this was the first time since ‘October 7’ that American troops were killed in direct hostilities in the Middle East. Biden immediately promised on Sunday that his government would avenge these American deaths, also to send a signal of deterrence to the militias and their supposed masters in Iran. At the same time, especially in this election year and now that regional tensions are already high due to the Gaza war, the Democrat is not looking for “a broader war” with Iran, he said this week.
Goldilocks approach
For its response, the US government had to, in the jargon of military and geopolitical analysts, look for one Goldilocks-approximation. This is based on the fairy tale in which Goldilocks tastes the cooling bowls of porridge from three bears until she finds the one bowl with exactly the right temperature. For its own domestic audience, American revenge had to be served ‘hot’ enough, but not too hot so as not to further inflame the Middle East. American bombings on Iranian territory were therefore not considered very likely in advance.
According to National Security Council spokesman John Kirby has “addressed the power of the IRGC and militant groups in a more robust manner than previously.” To this end, command centers, headquarters and drone and missile depots were hit, which could be “clearly and conclusively” linked to previous attacks on US troops. Kirby: “The signal is: the attacks must stop.”
However, the fact that the US first allowed six days to pass was also interpreted by experts as de-escalation. Biden promised on Sunday that America would take revenge, and on Tuesday he said that the targets had been selected. The fact that the bombing was only actually carried out on Friday – shortly after the closing of the American stock markets – gave Iran respite to withdraw high-ranking guards and other troops from the militias in Syria and Iraq in a timely manner.
With this so-called ‘telegraphing’ of the upcoming attacks, the White House also seemed to want to send the signal that it is not seeking a direct military confrontation with Iran, experts say. “In this way, the US was able to reduce the effectiveness of those Iranian-backed militias, but without escalating,” said Mick Mulroy, a former US deputy secretary of defense, against the British broadcaster BBC. “Although it will probably not provide sufficient deterrence against future attacks.”
The American approach to pro-Iranian groups in the region has so far had limited effect. Last month, the US and several Western allies took action against the Houthis in Yemen, who are disrupting international shipping through the Red Sea with shelling. These attacks have not yet been accepted by the pro-Iran rebel group. On Saturday evening, the US, together with the British, again bombed 36 targets in Yemen.
Republican criticism
Biden’s tailor-made response immediately drew criticism from the Republican opposition on Friday evening. Speaker Mike Johnson of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives was quick to concede a statement in which he spoke of “open hand-wringing and excessive signaling” by Biden. “It is time for the government to admit that its strategy to appease Iran has failed miserably.”
Senator Markwayne Mullin (from Oklahoma) reminded that previous Republican presidents took tougher action. “When Iran stirred in 1988, Ronald Reagan sank their navy. When the IRGC threatened Americans again, President Trump ordered an airstrike [in Irak] That [de Iraanse topgeneraal] Soleimani killed. Deterrence does not consist of half-hearted, delayed measures. Deterrence is cutting off the head of the snake.”
There is no indication that Biden will heed these Republican calls for more direct and tougher action against Iran. Former President Donald Trump, who wants to challenge him in the November elections, regularly claims during campaign appearances that the Middle East was much calmer under his administration (2017-’21). And although he also criticizes Biden’s approach to Iran as ‘weak’, he would criticize Biden much more fiercely as a ‘warmonger’ if there were to be an escalation with Tehran.
In the short written statement that the White House put out on Friday, Biden sought a balance between wanting to remove tension and using muscle language. “The United States is not seeking conflict in the Middle East or elsewhere in the world,” it said. “But let it be clear to anyone who wants to hurt us: if you harm an American, we will respond.”
Addition (4/2): this article was updated on Sunday morning with the new American-British bombing of Yemen.