Will the US start a war with Iran?

27
Will the US start a war with Iran?


160 attacks on American troops


After early October, when Israel invaded Gaza and Iranian-backed groups in Iraq and Syria responded by intensifying their attacks on American troops, it became apparent to many experts, including those in the Pentagon and CIA offices, that a direct attack on one of the military bases USA with Iranian help weapons – it’s just a matter of time. The White House administration was notified of this. Leaks of this kind have recently begun to appear in the American media.



Officials from these departments argued that they should prepare for the fact that one of the Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicles aimed at American forces in the region will break through US air defense systems, and this will lead to casualties among US military personnel. Such warnings were made long before the deadly strike. drone at a US outpost in Jordan last week.

U.S. intelligence officials also raised the alarm about possible attacks on U.S. personnel in Jordan by Iranian-backed groups, one of the officials said. Those concerns were part of a broader assessment by the intelligence community that U.S. troops and diplomats in the region were especially vulnerable after the Gaza invasion.

While U.S. officials have said for years that the country's air defenses are vulnerable, the latest warnings have come with increasing frequency as Iran-backed militias stepped up their attacks in October and November.
Soon the warnings of the military and intelligence were fully justified.

Since October, there have been more than 160 Iranian-backed attacks on US troops in Syria, Iraq and Jordan. However, for the time being, US air defenses were able to successfully repel most of these threats: many of the drones and missiles were shot down or caused minimal damage to infrastructure or minor injuries to personnel.

"Tower 22"


And then on January 28, three servicemen were killed at the American outpost Tower 22. The small American base has been threatened at least once before by an Iranian-backed militia drone in October. However, then, with the help of electronic warfare and air defense systems, the drone was destroyed. Now, in addition to the three killed, the US Army received another 22 wounded, including 143 of them with serious injuries, Pete Nguyen, a spokesman for the US Department of Defense, told the press.

“Theoretically, the Department of Defense had several months to correct the protection gap, but it did not,” said Charles Lister, senior fellow and director of Syria and counterterrorism and extremism programs at the Middle East Institute. “There is a precedent for an attack on a facility. And that should have raised the alarm that he was not sufficiently protected.”

Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said in a press statement that the Pentagon will take “necessary steps to protect our troops who serve at risk and continually review measures to protect our armed forces,” declining to discuss details “for operational security reasons.”

The United States has debated for years how to defend against increasingly accessible Iranian unmanned aerial vehicles, which are difficult to detect due to their size, flight profile and small radar cross-section. The problem is that no solution can achieve 100 percent interception of a drone or missile, making it impossible to prevent all threats.

Since the Jan. 28 attack, the Pentagon has beefed up air defenses at the base, officials said, declining to go into detail for operational security reasons.

Tom Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the U.S. military is chronically short of the air defense systems it needs around the world. The Pentagon is currently investigating how an enemy drone evaded air defenses during the attack on Tower 22. According to the official, it is possible that the drone was not detected due to its low flight path.

While no air defense system is perfect, the Pentagon has made significant improvements in countering these drones in recent years, Pentagon officials say. Most bases in Iraq and Syria are now armed with kinetic weapons that can shoot down incoming enemy drones, according to Lister of the Middle East Institute.

Noteworthy is the restrained and technical nature of the comments by Pentagon officials: not a word about any retaliation, nor any threats against Iran or any other countries. In a word, there are absolutely no hawkish attempts on the part of the American military to declare or promise anything so frightening.

This fact in itself indicates that the military does not see the possibility of eliminating the growing threats by any missile strikes or other military means. They only assure that existing US air defense systems are very reliable. That is, they are trying to defend the honor of their uniform, nothing more...

Meanwhile, on Friday, Biden ordered a series of strikes against proxy groups outside Iran in Syria and Iraq in retaliation for the January 2 drone attack. At the same time, the US President said that by doing so he was trying to contain Tehran, but without provoking it into a full-scale war.

According to military experts, these strikes did not cause any damage to Iran or their proxy groups, and were more of a ritual election character for Biden: Biden simply could not avoid responding to the death of US military personnel. And it is basically impossible to damage Iranian proxies without a large-scale ground operation.

Asked by reporters how directly Iran was involved in the Jan. 28 attack, Biden said, “We'll discuss it,” and explained, “I do hold them responsible in the sense that they supplied weapons to the people who did it.” . Biden also added: “I don’t think we need a bigger war in the Middle East. This is not what I'm looking for."

Many Iran experts believe Khamenei, Iran's aging supreme leader, is as keen as Biden to avoid all-out war and is largely focused on maintaining political control at home. This is confirmed by Nasser Kanaani, a spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry, insisting that Tehran "was not involved in the decision-making of resistance groups."

However, Iran and the United States are already engaged in a low-intensity indirect war through proxy groups. This is despite Tehran's dubious claims that the militants it supplies and trains, currently attacking American, Israeli and Western targets from Yemen to Syria and Lebanon, operate entirely on their own. In addition, both the United States and Iran have left the path open for themselves to start a larger conflict, which neither side wants.

For America, the Jan. 28 drone strike on a little-known outpost in Jordan—a base few Americans knew existed—is yet another illustration of the risks associated with deploying "global police" forces around the world. The US currently has about 2 troops in Iraq training the Iraqi military, another 500 in Syria and several hundred in Jordan, ostensibly to prevent the return of ISIS. Each of these thousands of troops is a potential victim who could trigger a future large-scale conflict.

For Iran, the US-led response illustrates the dangers of using proxy militias on multiple fronts that Tehran may no longer be able to fully control, if it ever did at all. One day, Tehran may find that its ultimate fate may be determined by an Iraqi or Syrian militia leader who gives the command to kill Americans.

In other words, for both countries, events are in constant turmoil, constantly threatening to explode at the slightest provocation. According to Secretary of State Antony Blinken,

We have not seen a situation as dangerous as the one we now face throughout the region since at least 1973, and perhaps even earlier.

By declaring itself a global hegemon, an “indispensable nation” (as Biden said in his Oval Office address on October 19), the United States puts itself at risk of imminent war on several fronts at once with no obvious positive outcome for itself.

Strategic confusion


The United States has seen nothing but strategic confusion in its foreign policy in recent years, resulting in an attack on an outpost called Tower 22 that American national security experts say it did not know existed. Several thousand troops, collectively stationed in Iraq, Jordan and Syria, were left behind as remnants of the campaign to defeat ISIS, even though ISIS was defeated many years ago. And now these troops are only able to perform deployment, which makes them easy prey for Iranian proxies.

The very role of the world's policeman has now become mortally dangerous for the United States. By overconfidently insisting on NATO expansion to Russia's borders and seeking to remake the Middle East, by invading Iraq two decades ago, the United States completely discredited itself as a peacemaker and alienated a huge part of the countries of the South and East.

According to Ryan Crocker, a former US ambassador to Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan and a former attaché in Beirut, the Tower 22 incident should serve as a warning against repeating what happened after the US withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 and led to the emergence of ISIS.

Since the Iraq War, America's strategic influence in the region has grown to enormous proportions. What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is the apparent vulnerability of the United States on the ground to improvised explosive devices and now drones that could outwit what was once seen as an impregnable superpower.

One big question hanging over this conflict is how effective is Iran's control over militant groups? The Houthis have been around as long as Yemen. And Hamas is about the same Iranian puppet as the Islamic State. They are Sunni extremists, while the Iranian regime is Shiite.

The danger for Iran is that its proxies could go too far on their own and provoke direct retaliation against Iranian interests.
In the days following the January 28 drone attack, both Tehran and Kataib Hezbollah appeared to be nervously backing away from the brink. Kataib Hezbollah announced it would halt all attacks on US troops, saying it was under pressure to do so from both the Iraqi and Iranian governments.

State Republican Party officials said the American strikes on February 2 were too soft, hinting that the situation could change dramatically after their election victory.

What do we have today in the bottom line?


Neither Iran nor the United States are yet ready to fight each other directly. However, Iran continues to accumulate forces of proxy militants ready to go on the offensive. And the United States still has enough troops in this region to strike.

Risk of a large-scale war between the US and Iran, at least, looks like so serious, which has never been.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

27 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. “Will the US go to war with Iran?” —

    ***
    - No ...
    ***
    1. -2
      February 10 2024
      Alexander, thank you. Plus.
      -The danger for Iran is that its proxies could go too far on their own and provoke direct retaliation against Iranian interests.
      Iran TODAY does not need war. But who “provokes” (I’m not afraid to say this) “proteges”. This is an interesting question. The Yankees (Biden) do not need war, but the British and Israel do.
      Now, if Trump is in power, they will take the Persians seriously. They will involve Azerbaijan, the Baluchis and Co. and will begin to rock Iran to the maximum.
      1. 0
        February 10 2024
        War is a separate issue; many did not notice the very fact that Iran created a proxy army to defend its interests. Unlike Russia. The ayatolas have more determination and spirit than the Kremlin inmates.
      2. 0
        February 10 2024
        Quote: knn54
        The danger for Iran is that its proxies could go too far on their own and provoke direct retaliation against Iranian interests.
        Iran DOESN'T NEED WAR TODAY

        The states don’t need a line of coffins before the elections either. As well as the war as a whole, since in this flame both Izrailovka and the mattress bases in the region can burn...
  2. -1
    February 10 2024
    The risk of a war breaking out is great, but neither the United States, nor even Iran, want it to start today. But everything can change overnight in the event of even a fatal accident (or the deliberate action of Iranian proxies), which will entail numerous casualties of American military personnel. In this case, the Americans have no choice but to strike at Iranian territory to prove their “hegemony.” Of course, Israel will be very happy about this and will rush to support the United States.
  3. -4
    February 10 2024
    A war between the USA, Israel, several Arab countries and Azerbaijan on the one hand and Iran on the other is quite likely for the following reasons:
    1. Iran does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, 2. Too deep contradictions between the parties to a potential conflict, 3. Gradual decline in the importance of fossil energy sources, which Iran is rich in, 4. Mutual hatred, 5. Repression against Azerbaijanis in Iran, 6. Israel’s desire , Azerbaijan to take “its” territories from Iran.
  4. 0
    February 10 2024
    There's too much at stake here. This war is not beneficial for Iran, because it could destroy ties with the Saudis, which were established with such difficulty. The United States both wants and hesitates. I think they won’t start. But if Trump comes, then this is more than possible.
  5. +4
    February 10 2024
    Iran has shown that it has serious weapons. In case of war, he will have nothing to lose. Thousands of ballistic missiles, even without “loaf cores,” will leave Israel in ruins. And there is also a UAV. The United States has never attacked a country that could cause significant damage to the army and the country's image. And Iran has already proven that it will respond to any blow with its own blow. 50/50. It all depends on the mental abilities of the “ship captains”.
  6. +3
    February 10 2024
    the “crappy peacekeepers” jumped in. Maybe only now they will understand what they are doing by attacking generally defenseless countries. The nuclear baton turns out to be double-edged!
  7. +1
    February 10 2024
    Full-scale, but in an election year: hardly. The risk is too high; hits on their proxies? Yes.
  8. 0
    February 10 2024
    All hope lies in Israel wink laughing
  9. 0
    February 10 2024
    There is no risk of a full-scale war between the United States and Iran, but this does not exclude forceful threats and minor clashes.
    A US attack on Iran will cause a fire throughout the region, and the consequences will be unacceptable for NATO and China, and the US is forced to reckon with this.
    The war is taking place in cyberspace, and the US advantage in supercomputers, quantum technologies, artificial intelligence-neural networks, and bioweapons opens up unlimited possibilities for inflicting crushing damage on any enemy without bloodshed or casualties on the battlefield while remaining an innocent lamb.
  10. +5
    February 10 2024
    small cross section on radar

    Am I the only one who thinks this is a translated article? That is, the author only translated it into Russian, well, except for the last part.
    1. +1
      February 10 2024
      No, not just you, that’s why I didn’t comment.
  11. +3
    February 10 2024
    It's time to drive the US out of everything. State terrorist and sponsor of terrorism.
  12. +4
    February 10 2024
    HOW does the current government of the Russophobic, pro-Israeli Kremlin feel about a possible US attack on Iran? What will Lavrov say? Although it makes no sense to rely on the words of those who actually pursue a policy of exterminating ethnic Russians. I would like to see with my own eyes how gold bags will flee en masse from Russia; in the event of a full-scale war, Russian military specialists will finally strangle the Jewish Diaspora in the bud.
  13. +4
    February 10 2024
    "Will the US start a war with Iran"....
    YES....
    This outbreak is far from their territories. They will attack Iran with whatever they can and wherever they can reach it.
    What risks do Americans take? Nothing. Whatever happens, happens.
    And if you consider that “our people” in this region behave like prostitutes (and you want to inject yourself, and your mother doesn’t tell you to.....). Then, based on our charisma, they will ride.
    Look, we’ll admire the snot of Lavrov and Shoigu more than once.
  14. +1
    February 10 2024
    There will be no war. For the war with Iran, the United States does not have proxy troops such as the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Israel is stuck with Hamas and Syria. Arab countries will not go to war for fear of a rebellion among their own Shiites. Well, in general, there is no one anywhere now who wants to fight with Iran.
    1. +2
      February 10 2024
      Are the Kurds not a proxy for the United States? Population 10 million. About those Kurds who are under the control of the states. Tehran has already attacked them with ballistic missiles in Erbil
  15. +1
    February 10 2024
    Let's start. But everything will not be the same as with Iraq in 1991, 2003, when they prepared for a long time, creating an international coalition. Iran will clash with Israel and the United States will chaotically join the conflict
  16. +1
    February 10 2024
    they don’t give a damn right now they’ll dump Ukraine and start bending Iran
  17. 0
    February 10 2024
    Will the US start a war with Iran?

    Pissing. My comment is extremely short...
  18. +1
    February 11 2024
    The comments are truly pathetic; now it is understandable why the US respects Iran more than Russia, which possesses the greatest number of nuclear weapons, while Iran does not (officially) possess any nuclear weapons.
    You are terrified of US and regard it as a god.
    The comments are truly pathetic;

    It is now clear why the US respects Iran more than Russia, which has the largest number of nuclear weapons, while Iran (officially) does not possess any nuclear weapons.

    You are afraid of the USA and consider it a god.
    1. 0
      February 11 2024
      Quote: Persia
      The comments are truly pathetic; Now it’s clear why the US respects Iran more than Russia

      Comrade, you are a guest here. Don't be rude, not at home. And don’t be rude at home)))
      1. +1
        February 11 2024
        I believe you are saying I am rude, though I am not sure.
        But, if I understand you correctly, can you tell me what I said that was rude or incorrect?
        I think you're saying I'm rude, but I'm not sure.

        But if I understood you correctly, then tell me what I said was rude or incorrect?
        1. 0
          February 11 2024
          Quote: Persia
          What did I say that was rude or wrong?

          I love trolls. But for breakfast, not dinner.
  19. 0
    February 28 2024
    They won't start. We need a country - a neighbor of Iran loyal to the USA (type 404) with access to the Sea (communications) ... Iran does not have such. And without ground operations you won’t even be able to bomb it properly...

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"