According to U.S. officials in Iraq and Syria, Iranian proxy attacks on bases housing U.S. military personnel are growing. The U.S. has not responded forcefully since 2021.
Seven attacks occurred in May. There have been 29 attacks since October.
Two U.S. officials who were familiar with the assessment said that while no Americans have been hurt or killed in these incidents so far, an intelligence assessment by the U.S. found Iran may have believed its proxy groups had. Iranians boast of battlefield victories that cannot be substantiated. In a claim that Iranian officials had killed Israelis in a safe house in Irbil earlier this year, it turned out to not be true.
Officials claim that the attacks were carried out by Iranian-backed militias.
The White House National Security Council stated that “President Biden takes security of U.S. personnel overseas more seriously than anything else.” Just before our election, U.S. facilities and personnel were regularly under attack in Syria and Iraq. In late 2020, the United States suffered its largest rocket attack on Baghdad’s embassy in more than a decade. We immediately used a variety of tools including diplomatic engagement and military strikes to protect our personnel and reduce the risk of future attacks. Since the middle of last year, there has been a significant decrease in attacks.
“Not all responses will be visible or seen, but Iran fully comprehends that the United States is ready to respond immediately to any threat to U.S personnel.”
Trump’s administration stated that it would respond to any Americans who were hurt or killed in an attack. However, the Biden administration has not drawn a comparable red line for retaliation. A possible response would not depend on U.S casualties.
Michael Knights, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, has been closely following the militias and says that there’s been an “increase” in attacks since April. These attacks appeared to have been designed to warn.
Knights stated that the impetus behind the increase in attacks was probably the stalled negotiations over the 2015 nuclear agreement and signals from Washington suggesting it might increase economic pressure on Tehran should the talks collapse. Knights believes that the attacks are intended to send Washington a message that increasing pressure on Iran will lead to more attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria.
“A lot this stuff seems to be in a manner of a warning. We are warming up. This is what we could do, if we wanted. [T]hey remind us that they could [kill] us ],'” Knights.
“I believe it’s an indicator that they are heating up their capability and they’re showing that they are warming their capabilities.”
Five so-called suicide drones, armed with explosives and shrapnel, attacked the U.S. garrison in At Tanf, southern Syria, on October 20, 2021. The attack resulted in no deaths, but many structures were severely damaged. Three U.S. defense officials claimed that Iran was responsible for the attack. Two administration officials also stated that proxy forces carried out the attack in the intent of killing U.S. soldiers.
According to U.S. officials, Iran launched the attack as a retaliation against an Israeli strike on advanced missiles parts in Syria which killed and injured Iranian citizens. Officials said that while the U.S. military was aware of the threat from drones, it was able to evacuate most of the 200 troops from the base. This may have been the reason no troops were killed or injured.
The U.S. sent a warning to Iran via diplomatic channels following the At Tanf attack. According to a list compiled by a senior defense official, U.S. troops were attacked at least 29 times since then. Last week, an Iranian-backed group launched five Katyusha missiles at al Asad Air Base in western Iraq.
In retaliation to rocket attacks in Syria, the Biden administration launched airstrikes against Iraqi militia targets on February 20, 2021. It also carried out strikes against Iraqi civilian targets in June 2021. However, it has not retaliated against Iranian proxy forces for any attack since At Tanf.
According to the Biden administration, Tehran has been informed that it holds Tehran responsible in relation to attacks by militia groups in Iraq or Syria. Officials insist that Iran is aware that the U.S., starting with President Joe Biden and ending with the military, is ready to respond.
Officials insist that the U.S. does not ignore the attacks by not responding to airstrikes.
Iran-backed groups could be trying to get the U.S. involved in a situation that could escalate. Some Biden administration officials believe it is better to work with Iraqi military personnel, to focus on diplomatic messaging or to consider sanctions. After attacks, the U.S. has been able to hunt down militia groups using intelligence from Iraq and their counter-terror forces.
The majority of recent attacks were ineffective or easily defeated. Before deciding on a response, the Biden administration considers the severity of the attack.
Although the Biden administration has not observed any evidence that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps made a decision against the U.S. in Iraq and Syria, officials warn that this could change. A significant escalation against America could threaten a new nuclear deal.
While most of the attacks were conducted by indirect fire, officials from the United States are concerned about increasing numbers of unmanned drones. These drones are often called suicide drones. Unconfirmed, however, was a possible SA-6 surface-to-air missile attack against two U.S. F-16s at Dar Az Zawr in Syria.
The Biden administration demanded options for responding to the At Tanf attack. Within hours, General Frank McKenzie (commander of U.S. Central Command at that time), briefed Secretary Of Defense Lloyd Austin about options for retaliation, which included airstrikes against Iran that could result in the death of Iranians.
Officials from the White House were adamant about the possibility that Iranians would be killed and demanded more options. After considering several options, the Biden administration settled on a diplomatic message instead of a military response. This angered some U.S military leaders who wanted to strike back. White House approval would be required for a U.S. military reaction against Iran.
According to U.S. military statistics that show this to be true for every strike against Iran since 2007, if a clear approval is not given to carry out a retaliatory attack within 72 hours, it is highly unlikely that the strike will occur.
According to statistics and U.S. military officers, the U.S. will be less likely to perform any kinetic actions if the White House and National Security Council request more options.
According to one U.S. military official, the Iranian situation is on an “escalation ladder”. He cited the assassination in Tehran of a Quds Force leader, Iran’s capture of two Greek oil tankers and Israel’s recent military exercise that simulates strikes against Iran.
