Brian M Downing
The Trump administration is addressing world trouble spots. The most apparent ones are of course Syria, where the US retaliated for the government’s use of chemical weapons, and Korea, where a carrier strike group and missile shield have deployed.
Only somewhat less apparent has been the renewed tough talk toward Iran. US officials have repeated the charge that Iran is the most important state sponsor of terrorism and is expanding its power in the region. Further, the administration echoes the Likud’s claim that, despite the P5+1 deal of 2015, Iran is still determined to develop nuclear weapons. The administration’s claims are debatable but its intentions to act are unmistakable.
Is action coming? If so, what kind and where?
Attacking Iran
The most obvious response would be an attack on Iran, probably military targets, especially ones under IRGC control. Iran’s improved air defense system, courtesy of Russia, makes a cruise missile strike more likely than one made by fighters.
An impending attack might bring a deployment of Russian fighter aircraft and other military assets to Iran, if only briefly. It’s unlikely that attacks would cause Iran to alter its behavior in the world. Two other consequences are more probable. First, reform parties would be seriously weakened and military-clerical forces would be greatly strengthened. (Elections are scheduled for mid-May.) Second, European allies would be dismayed by the Trump administration’s unilateral action against a state that has abided by the terms of the nuclear treaty – and opened up to EU commerce too. American businesses might see a large market slipping away.
The administration could punish Iran by supporting assassinations and insurgencies in the country’s Kurdish northwest and Baloch southeast. Again, however, it’s unlikely to bring positive results, neither to the US nor to the region, and the cause of reform would be damaged.
Action elsewhere is more likely.
Attacking Iranian allies
The US would do greater damage to Iranian power by concentrating on Tehran’s allies in the region – the Houthis in Yemen and Hisbollah in the Levant.
Yemen is mired in another of its civil wars between the north and south. Iran supports the Shia north, the Gulf monarchies do the same for the Sunni south. Though it has taken on religious hues, the war is more between disparate regions than between antagonistic sects. It has unmistakable importance for Saudi-Iranian relations, though.
The war has been largely stalemated for several months. Neither side has a decisive advantage, both have significant weaknesses. Thus far, the US has armed the south and provided it with intelligence, especially as related to bombing targets. Greater US involvement, such as airstrikes, naval bombardment, and a threatened or actual ground campaign in the north could gravely weaken the Houthis and deeply embarrass Iran.
Hisbollah grew out of the Shia resistance to Ariel Sharon’s lengthy occupation of Lebanon in the early eighties. Since then, it has drawn closer to Iran and become a powerful political-military force. It has shown its effectiveness by wearing down the Israeli army in southern Lebanon and turning the tide in the Syrian civil war.
Israel, especially its Right, considers Hisbollah a worrisome enemy and proxy of Iranian expansionism. IDF aircraft have repeatedly struck arms caches inside Syria that were judged headed for Hisbollah in Lebanon. The US may encourage or even help Israel increase the tempo of strikes on Hisbollah. This will weaken Iranian power and the Syrian government too. Hamas, an Iranian-backed group in Gaza, may also come under attack.
Curiously, Putin has held back from criticizing Israel’s attacks on Hisbollah. Indeed, he may have given Israel the codes to thwart the Syrian air defense systems before one recent strike. Hisbollah is only a minor player in Moscow’s plans. Perhaps Israeli airpower will turn its attention to other Iran-backed militias in Syria and IRGC troops too.
* * *
Concerted attacks on Iranian allies in Yemen and the Levant would be a significant counter to Iranian influence, exaggerated though it is. Attacks would also signal operational significance to the Israel, Sunni, American axis in regional politics, which could include an important role in the futures of Yemen and Syria.This will further commit the US to the Sunni side in what will likely be a protracted sectarian conflict.
American-Saudi ties would be strengthened – this at a time when the US’s long-term position in Middle East is challenged by Russia and China. And of course the smooth flow of American arms to Sunni monarchies would continue. Oil isn’t the only important item that transits the Strait of Hormuz.
Copyright 2017 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who has written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs.