How the U.S. set a trap for Iranian proxies in Iraq and Syria
On January 28, 2024, a suicide drone attack on a U.S. military outpost in Jordan killed three American soldiers and wounded dozens more. The attack was the deadliest against U.S. troops in the Middle East in at least a decade, and it was widely attributed to Iran-backed militias operating in Iraq and Syria. Many observers expected the U.S. to retaliate swiftly and forcefully, but instead, the U.S. waited for a week before launching a series of air and missile strikes against Iranian proxies in both countries. Why did the U.S. delay its response, and what was the logic behind its strategy?
Some analysts have argued that the U.S. was too slow to react, and that it missed an opportunity to deter Iran and its proxies from further aggression. Others have claimed that the U.S. was sending a clear message of deterrence to Iran and its proxies, and that it demonstrated its resolve and capability to defend its interests and allies in the region. However, both of these views are based on poor logic and ignore the complexities of the situation. The U.S. did not delay its response, but rather used the time to gather intelligence and set a trap for the perpetrators of the drone attack, who were believed to be affiliated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its various proxy groups.
The U.S. used two methods to gather intelligence and identify the responsible parties: exploiting the leader-follower problems and the civilian problems of the militant groups. The leader-follower problems refer to the potential conflicts of interest and information asymmetry between the leaders and the followers of the militant groups. The U.S. used public statements and leaks to signal its intention to strike, hoping to induce defections, betrayals, or confessions from the followers who might have different preferences or incentives than the leaders. For example, the U.S. announced that it had identified the type and origin of the drone that was used in the attack, and that it had traced it back to a specific IRGC unit and a specific militia group. This information was intended to sow doubt and fear among the rank and file of the militant groups, and to pressure them to reveal more details about the attack or to distance themselves from it.
The civilian problems refer to the potential backlash and resentment from the local population that the militant groups rely on for support and recruitment. The U.S. used precision strikes and humanitarian aid to minimize civilian casualties and damage, hoping to isolate the militants from their base and expose their locations and identities. For example, the U.S. targeted only the facilities and weapons that were used by the IRGC and its proxies, and avoided hitting residential areas or infrastructure. The U.S. also delivered food, water, and medical supplies to the affected areas, and expressed its sympathy and solidarity with the innocent civilians. This was intended to undermine the legitimacy and popularity of the militant groups, and to encourage the locals to cooperate with the U.S. and its allies in identifying and locating the militants.
The U.S. strategy was successful in gathering valuable intelligence and weakening the Iranian proxies, while avoiding escalation and retaliation from Iran. The U.S. confirmed that it had killed or wounded dozens of militants, and that it had destroyed or damaged more than 85 targets, including command and control centers, intelligence centers, rockets, missiles, and drone storages. The U.S. also said that it had obtained more information about the drone attack and the network behind it, and that it would continue to pursue and punish those responsible. The U.S. also made it clear that it did not seek conflict in the Middle East, but that it would defend itself and its allies if attacked. Iran and its proxies did not respond to the U.S. strikes, and instead called for restraint and dialogue.
The U.S. might use similar tactics in the future to deal with other threats in the region, such as the Houthis in Yemen, who have also increased their drone and missile attacks on Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies. The U.S. has shown that it can use its superior intelligence and precision capabilities to target and disrupt the enemies’ operations, while minimizing the collateral damage and the risk of escalation. The United States has also shown that it can use its diplomatic and humanitarian leverage to win the hearts and minds of the local population, and to isolate and expose the enemies’ activities. The U.S. has demonstrated that it can strike a balance between deterrence and restraint, and that it can adapt to the changing dynamics and challenges in the Middle East.
