Navigating radars, shwacking targets, preventing wars.
J. E. Dyer, The Optimisitic Conservative
Monday 29 January update: This article has to get posted sometime, so I’m officially cutting it off with a target-set observation on the most recent attacks by Iran’s proxies, including the attack on Tower 22 at the border of Jordan and Syria (near the U.S. base at Al-Tanf). At least 47 Americans are now said to have been injured by the drone attack there on Sunday, and three soldiers were killed.
I’m not opposed to attacking the Iranian Qods Force commander, Esmail Qa’ani. The Qods Force directs the activities of the Iraqi militias, which presumably are behind the Tower 22 attack.
However, the cumulative and escalating attacks on U.S. interests should not be merely “retaliated” against. Iran is incapable of escalating this to an all-out regional war, and much the better course is to recognize the attacks so far as justifying a decisive, deterrent response. The U.S. should not try to imagine what would be “symmetrical” – we’re not Iran; that’s the point – but what would sit the regime’s butt down hard and prevent further provocation. Further provocation is what disrupts the whole region and makes Word War III more likely. Preventing that is absolutely what we should be doing. No boots on the ground required.
Iran’s biggest geomilitary treasures at the moment, as summarized at the very end of the article, are access to their Houthi proxies in Yemen, and access to their Iraqi militia proxies, via Iran’s land-bridge through Iraq and into Syria.
This is the time to knock Iran sideways in that regard. Cut Tehran off from the Houthis, degrade the Houthis’ operational capabilities, and take out everything Iran relies on to keep the land-bridge across Iraq in play, starting with all Iran-linked weapons stashes in Iraq and Eastern Syria. Leave it a smoking ruin so Iran’s regime can’t use it for the foreseeable future. Start by eliminating everything within rocket or drone range of U.S. bases.
There’s more in the article about that. For whether President Biden will actually respond in a useful way, see the final paragraphs (before the footnote).
Earlier:
Since this article was 95% completed, newer events have emerged that need to be noted as scene-setters. Here are two of them.
On Sunday, three U.S. servicemembers were killed in a drone attack on Tower 22, located near the U.S. base at Al-Tanf on the border of Syria with Jordan and Iraq.
CNN notes that, since attacks on U.S. forces began in October, this is the first known attack on the U.S. base area at Al-Tanf. It’s also the first direct kill of U.S. soldiers in an attack by Iran-backed Iraqi militias.
Tower 22 itself is just inside Jordan, while Al-Tanf is in Syria.
A late update: CENTCOM indicates a total of 34 Americans are wounded from the 28 January attack, and 8 have been evacuated from Jordan for medical treatment.
The escalatory nature of this event is obvious. But I want to point out an additional import it carries, one that is real and that matters.
The U.S. has two concentrations of forces in Syria, with about 900 troops allocated between them. One is the base area at Al-Tanf. The other is in the oilfields of northeastern Syria, where we maintain a close liaison with the Kurds. The two base locations flank Iran’s land-bridge from Iraq and across Syria. They are the last U.S. outposts left to exert a check on Iran’s use of the land-bridge.
In the scramble for a U.S. footprint in Syria in the last year of Trump’s term, these two outposts are what was left in place. If we believe the media narrative about what was going on at the time, Trump wanted to withdraw all of our troops from Syria, and the Pentagon, under SECDEF Mark Esper, basically mutinied and arranged to keep some forces in Syria. (That didn’t seem to change after Trump fired Esper and appointed an interim Acting SECDEF, Christopher Miller, for his final weeks in office.)
However that may have been, this profile – troops in the northeast and at Al-Tanf, flanking Iran’s line of communication to the west – was the result.
Just a few days ago, “leaked” information indicated the U.S. is eyeing the withdrawal of our troops in the oilfields northeastern Syria. (That is discussed a bit more toward the end of this article.) I agree with Foreign Policy that we should not withdraw: I was relieved in late 2020 when it became clear we were going to at least leave the small but important flanking positions occupied In Syria.
[Click photo to enlarge]
It’s worth noting that the Biden administration is reportedly contemplating a withdrawal the “permanent state” accused Trump of irresponsibly proposing – and is now pondering it at a much worse time, when it clearly signals abject weakness and precipitate retreat.
But here’s what we mustn’t miss. Biden is said to be looking at removal of the troops in the north. Nothing has been said about the troops in the south of Syria, at Al-Tanf.
So that – in the south – is where the Iran-backed militias attacked for the first time on 28 January. The attack couldn’t be more obviously intended to drive us out of the southern position as well as the one in the north.
Nothing is random here. Everything points to the longer, larger war envisioned by the Iranian regime.
It’s a war China and Russia want to benefit from. The second event I’m highlighting is a report on 25 January that China is asking Iran to tell the Houthis to stop attacking shipping.
Note at the outset who told Reuters this (emphasis added): “Chinese officials have asked their Iranian counterparts to help rein in attacks on ships in the Red Sea by the Iran-backed Houthis, or risk harming business relations with Beijing, four Iranian sources and a diplomat familiar with the matter said.”
Peloni and Michael are both wrong. Israel is a very small nation, so I favor continuing arms to Israel. In any case, it is not aid.
@Peloni I agree but the U.S. must stop sabotaging weapons sales to Israel from third-party countries such as the recently aborted sale from Germany and Israel must fast-track restoring home-grown manufacturing. Also, Israeli companies should start leasing rather than selling the rights to crucial inventions so as to turn this into political leverage.
@Michael
The suggestion that Israel should be linked in any way to the neocon venture in Ukraine is absurd and short sighted. Israel is a long term ally of the US which has provided the US with innumerable benefits and acts as the only committed US ally in the region. Furthermore, Israel provides the US with substantial intelligence which the US would otherwise lack. The only benefit which Ukaine offers the US is to have the aid being sent to them recycled thru the black market to fill the pockets of the lobbyists and politicians sending the aid to Ukraine in the first place.
All of this being stated, the US should learn to treat Israel as a sovereign nation, and Israel should simultaneously do what is needed to act the part of a sovereign nation. The aid, which is not aid but an American MIC money spigot, has been weaponized to make Israel into an American lackey. Israel is a powerful and important nation in her own right, and should pursue her own objectives as needed and as they suit Israeli interests, while ignoring the demands placed upon her by all other nations to do otherwise, and this certainly should include the US. To do this, it means that Israel must do as Bibi promised back in 1996 before a joint session of Congress, and end the addiction to US aid, and simultaneously sever the leveraged control which is associated with it. If you were unaware, this has been my position with regards to US aid to Israel for a very, very long time.
In any event, I heartily agree with most of your suggestion, end the aid to both Israel and Ukraine, and seal the border. But I heartily disagree that the aid should be started up again after the border is secured. Indeed, if the US is not a piggy bank, how is it that you envision securing the border might make the US more piggy-bank-ish. In fact, your relating border security to Israeli aid does seem to be an arbitrary, nonsensical relationship to raise, as the problem with the border is not based on a lack of funds, but upon globalist oriented policies. In any event, I will not try to riddle that one for you. Let us just end the aid and keep it ended.
Also, the greater aid package being considered is not destined for Israel, but for the money laundering capital of the world, support for which, last I heard, you were entirely supportive of sending. But let us not quarrel over what we seem to agree upon. Let us end the aid, seal the border, and Make Israel Great Again. The US too.
Peloni,
Yes — and not a penny for Israel or Ukraine, until that’s done. We’re a country, not a piggy bank.
@Michael
@Laura
The notion that the US might be defended against the Ayatollahs in any meaningful degree by falling back to the US border is hopelessly naive. Indeed, the savagery committed against, and kidnapping of, American citizens on October 7, along with the attacks on US forces and international shipping, is what should draw America into demonstrating its power, even as it has thus far only demonstrated its impotence.
In truth, the US has already abandoned the security defenses of its bases in the Middle East. Bases such as those standing isolated in Syria and Iraq, many of which lie on low ground with minimal missile defenses were never intended to survive any significant oncoming assault. Their defense was always based upon the deterrence which American war capabilities were intended to provide. Due to the repeated acts of contrition which have been used to answer outright acts of war, any sense of deterrence has been eliminated, and with it went the only defense these forward bases actually had.
It is time to accept the fact that war has been made upon the American people, and that hiding at the American border will only lead to exacerbating the folly-filled policy thus far pursued by the US. Retreating back to the Rio Grande will not deter the Iranians, and let us not be beguiled by wishful thinking, as the Iranians have had every opportunity to infiltrate the American nation with their sleeper cells over recent years. As their spies have boldly taken root in the American govt, are we to believe that Iran has not likewise situated its terrorists across the US?
Without delay, the US border should be secured, but the war with Iran must be pressed within the Iranian border rather than making a stand at the American border. While eliminating Iran’s extensive proxy regime around the world, the primary target must be recognized to be the Mullahs and their expanding nuclear program in Iran. This rather than retreating back to the US border should be the path forward.
Laura,
What we are talking about here has nothing to do with Iran getting nuclear weapons. They already have the technology for that and, thanks to Biden and others, all the money they need. Keeping Americans on the ground there, for their proxies to take pot shots at, does nothing to stop this.
We absolutely, positively have to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
He’s pro-Iran and anti-Israel and he’s wrong. What good is his so-called solution if Iran gets nuclear weapons. We need to take those out even at the risk of WW3. Our problem is in desperately trying to avoid war at all costs, we are actually making a world war more likely. Does anybody learn from WW2 history? The same stupid isolationist/appeasement mentality at work today. They keep talking about escalation, but Iran and its allies are already escalating things. The more we try to avoid confronting Iran, the more they escalate. I loathe the likes of MacGreggor.
Col. Douglas MacGreggor has a different solution of how to deal with the Jordan/ Tanf incident: Pull US troops out of Iraq, Syria and Jordan, where they only serve as targets and have no apparent, useful, purpose.
https://rumble.com/v4ajik3-here-we-go-biden-decides-to-launch-war-with-iran-but-when-redacted-with-cla.html
MacGreggor goes further, to note that Iranian proxies in and from Mexico threaten us far more than those in Iran. I agree with him: If we really want to defend against the Ayatollah, we need to begin at our southern border, not in the Persian Gulf.