The single dominant idea within Western commentary on the subject of the proper response to Iran’s continuing attacks is escalation, specifically its danger and the consequent need to avoid it, or more explicitly to ‘de-escalate’.
Read more:
This is a nonsensical approach. Its practical implication is that any aggressor, not just Iran, can attack the West, and then be shielded from effective countermeasures by the perceived necessity to avoid a so-called ‘escalators cycle’, the singularly simplistic concept which holds that a counter-attack by one side can lead to a chain of retaliation of ever-increasing scale. In substance, concerns about escalation have become a ready excuse for either complete inaction or insufficient action, in the face of attack on Western interests.
The West’s de-escalation obsession is part of a larger problem, a desire for a diplomatic solution, even a diplomatic breakthrough, to resolve security crises as if by magic. Mark Dubowitz and Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies have correctly labeled this a “policy of non-confrontation”, initiated by former President Barack Obama.
Michael Oren has diagnosed the consequences, that “by showing fear, rather than backbone, in the face of Iranian aggression, the U.S. is only inviting defeat.” At present, these remain minority opinions, and so the West continues in its stubborn and grossly inappropriate pursuit of diplomatic solutions to problems that can only be resolved by armed force.
America can and should observe this fact and follow the example Israel has set, by dropping a bomb on the head of Mr. Al-Kaabi, whom it has already sanctioned as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist. That course of action would be infinitely more effective than speculating about the precise nature of the man’s relationship with his masters in Tehran. It would also help resolve the conundrum that concerns former CIA analyst Norm Roule, that “nothing — nothing … would compel the Iranian government to change what it’s doing”.
A plague of wishful thinking
The essential companion to the futile search for de-escalation is wishful thinking, of a kind prominently exhibited by U.S. intelligence officials who told CNN that the killing of three American soldiers in Jordan on 28 January surprised and worried Iran. This even though by the end of 1 February, American forces had been attacked about 166 times in Iraq and Syria. If Iran was concerned about killing Americans, the militias that it trains and equips would not be attacking U.S. bases substantially more often than twice a day, on average.
The depth of American, and not only American, self-deception is underlined by the fact of how the statements of Iran and its terrorist allies are reported. One of these allies, Kataib Hezbollah, claimed that it would suspend its attacks on Americans. Barely two days later, Akram Al-Kaabi of Al-Nujaba, announced that his particular group of Iranian-armed thugs was not bound by that decision. CNN suggested that this shows Iran might not exercise complete control over these groups, and took care to report Iran’s assertions that it does not seek war. What this amounts to is a basic failure to recognize that Iran and its friends are mocking American indecision and taking advantage of American weakness.
This inability to objectively understand reality is also the only substantive moving force behind the letter by 800 anonymous Western officials against Israeli policy, which ridiculously accuses Israel of disregarding “all important counterterrorism expertise gained since 9/11” and proceeds to make the claim that IDF operations in Gaza have “not contributed to Israel’s goal of defeating Hamas”, an example of suffocating stupidity that is rare even in the modern world.
Israel’s actions show the way
Israel’s actions, as reported by the press, show how Iran can be dealt with. Multiple air strikes in Syria which have killed its military personnel have led Iran to withdraw senior officers from the country, and demonstrate its “aversion to being sucked directly into a conflict”. This can be put more clearly. Iranians do not like to have their officers killed and are afraid that Israel will kill many more if Iran were to attack Israel directly.
America can and should observe this fact and follow the example Israel has set, by dropping a bomb on the head of Mr. Al-Kaabi, whom it has already sanctioned as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist. That course of action would be infinitely more effective than speculating about the precise nature of the man’s relationship with his masters in Tehran. It would also help resolve the conundrum that concerns former CIA analyst Norm Roule, that “nothing — nothing … would compel the Iranian government to change what it’s doing”.
Western hesitance makes simple predictions come true
It is most unfortunate that American policy is currently incapable of following such a course. It gives me no pleasure to remember that on 15 January, I wrote that “American and Western deterrence has been imploding” and the strikes against the Houthis were not sufficient to achieve any lasting result. On 19 January, I returned to the same theme and emphasized that Iran “is naturally acting with ever lesser restraint” in the absence of sustained military pressure. One does not need to be a prophet to correctly predict developments, which hinge on the West’s continuing unwillingness capacity to attack its enemies with sufficient strength and intensity.
The situation continues to deteriorate. On 30 January, the USS Gravely (DDG-107) shot down a Houthi anti-ship missile at the very last moment, using the short-range Phalanx automatic cannon that Western warships carry for such circumstances. Since commercial vessels are not equipped with these sophisticated radar-controlled weapons, the world’s biggest companies have decided that discretion is the better part of valor, and have stopped sailing through the Red Sea. The latest, on 2 February, is the world’s third largest container shipping company, CMA CGM.
The futility of the limited strikes so far carried out against Yemen is brought into sharp relief by the fact, reported by the BBC, that since the first strikes on 11 January, sailings through the Red Sea have continued to fall, declining by a further 29% by the beginning of February. In parallel, the Houthis have resumed long-range missile attacks on Israel, leading to another intercept by Israel’s expensive “Arrow 2” anti-ballistic missile system on 2 February.
The breaking point is coming
The situation cannot and will not continue as it is. Either the course of Western policy will change, or Iran and others will assume that the West has become completely incapable of defending itself effectively, and all Western and pro-Western forces in the Middle East will come under continuously growing pressure.
The Biden administration, which took two days following the killing of American soldiers to anonymously confirm that it has formulated a response plan, and then waited two more days to implement the plan following this announcement, is functionally incapable of deterring Iran. It is addicted to a policy of careful and limited strikes, which Iran and its friends will ride out. With less than 280 days remaining before the election, it is obvious to all that it is electoral politics, not national defense, that are the priority of almost all of America’s politicians.
In these circumstances, the breaking point will soon come. It will not take the form of a massive, or even a medium-sized, Iranian attack on U.S. forces or American interests in the Middle East. Much more likely, Iran will press the American administration to satisfy two of its biggest desires – to withdraw American forces from Iraq and Syria and to force Israel to end its operations in Gaza. Biden, who has already led America down into a cul-de-sac, will then face the immediate choice of taking much stronger action or presiding over a final collapse of American credibility.
The problem is made much worse by the fact that the most likely alternative to Biden is Trump, who the latter’s former National Security Adviser John Bolton has described as “unfit to be President” and as likely to be particularly careless if elected for a second term because he would be unable to run for a third term and hence pay less attention to public pressure. Of course, Biden would be equally term-limited, and substantively no more fit to be President.
Unless Nikki Haley can close the gap with Trump in her home state primary in South Carolina, America will be led for the next four years by one of two men who are completely morally and intellectually unsuitable for any political office, let alone that of President. A great number of countries, Israel included, will be in acute danger.
- Dan Zamansky is a British-Israeli independent historian and author of The New World Crisis, a Substack analysing the problems of today. His manuscript of this article may be found at Substack