Amid back-and-forth attacks between Iranian-backed militias and U.S. troops in Syria, a cycle of escalation is unfolding that could undermine U.S. diplomacy and even spark a war.
Reporting indicates the U.S. and Iran-backed militias have engaged in four rounds of attacks and reprisals since Aug. 15. Escalation is hard to control by both sides, and it’s important to remember flashpoints like these could become a larger conflict. The easiest way to prevent that is to reorient U.S. strategy in Iraq and Syria from a military one to a diplomatic one.
With an Iran nuclear deal imminent, it’s more urgent than ever for Washington to reevaluate its priorities. Iran is not an existential threat. Its regional proxy network is the strategy of an underdog. Without billions to invest in a military that could rival that of the United States, Iran cultivates the sympathies of its Shiite coreligionists in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and equips them to deter potential U.S. aggression.
The U.S. presence in Iraq and Syria likewise is meant to deter Iran. But this framing of deterrence doesn’t work; while the U.S. sees itself as preserving the status quo, these militias in Iraq and Syria assess that they have the bigger stake and are willing to incur more risk.
The ensuing standoff between proxies determined to expel U.S. troops and U.S. troops compelled by Washington to stay has now resulted in injured U.S. service members. This will continue if there’s no change in course. But there’s no need to risk a catastrophic war to fight Iran’s junior varsity team.
A good start to averting disaster is reassessing the need for U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria. These forces have one stated aim: countering Islamic State. But there’s an unstated corollary that’s more important: countering Iran. The former is best left to the Iraqis, who are now spearheading the anti-Islamic State mission. The latter is unnecessary if U.S. troops withdraw.
The current strategy hasn’t changed Iran’s behavior. Both under the Trump and Biden administrations, Iran continued attacks on U.S. forces using proxies in Iraq and Syria. But why should we accept the risks to U.S. troops for a mission with no clear benefits?
Keeping U.S. troops in Iraq ironically enables Iran’s strengths. Iran’s conventional forces are antiquated. Iran’s best fighters are variants of U.S. planes from the 1970s, Iran’s tanks copy decades-old Russian designs and its surface navy was largely destroyed in 1988. Iran’s main source of strength is in its ballistic missiles. The majority of these are short-range ballistic missiles such as the ones used in a March attack near the U.S. Consulate in Iraq. The easiest fight for Iran is one near its peripheries. Outside its sphere, U.S. forces are invulnerable.
The inverse is not true. The U.S. can project power throughout the region, and this increases Iran’s threat perception. The presence of U.S. forces throughout the Persian Gulf and in Iran’s sphere of influence allows the U.S. to strike into Iran’s own territory with impunity. For Iran, this is an existential threat that heightens Iran’s military impulses and makes war more likely. And the U.S. runs these risks despite the Middle East’s diminishing importance.
Pulling out troops conserves U.S. combat power and minimizes risk. There’s no benefit in Iraq or Syria to justify accepting the risk of all-out war. U.S. confrontation with Iran is a high-risk, low-reward endeavor.
Given the difficult choices the U.S. will have to make regarding its commitments in Europe and the Pacific, freeing up forces in the Middle East is sensible. This isn’t appeasement. This is acknowledging a world of trade-offs and the limits of military power. Iran has not responded to military force; it is not deterred.
The U.S. has a robust economic and diplomatic tool belt that can be used to influence the region. With a revived Iran nuclear deal on the horizon, the new Iran-U.S. relationship doesn’t have to be antagonistic. Overnight detente isn’t likely, but the prospect of war can be eliminated.
Washington should let the dividends of peace replace the sinews of war.
____
ABOUT THE WRITER
Geoff LaMear is a fellow at Defense Priorities, a foreign policy think tank.
