Today, U.S. Central Command in the Middle East reported that "a drone attack killed three U.S. service members and injured at least 25 near the Jordan-Syria border." Thus, "Oh shit."
The Washington Post's hurried reporting says "the attack may further inflame tensions that have been rising in the region since the start of the Israel-Gaza war." You think? "The one-way attack drone struck the living quarters of a base, causing injuries ranging from cuts and bruises to brain injuries.... The number of wounded is expected to rise as more troops report injuries."
That, for now, is the totality of the Post's coverage. Politico's emailed breaking news is more expansive, but not by much. "The assault marks the first time American troops have been killed in months of drone and missile attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria, and now Jordan," writes the publication.
After briefings from DefSec Austin, National Security Adviser Sullivan and Principal Deputy National Security Advisor Finer, President Biden released a statement: "We know it was carried out by radical Iran-backed militant groups operating in Syria and Iraq."
By way of coincidence, this morning ABC’s "This Week" aired a prerecorded interview with Joint Chiefs Chairman C.Q. Brown, who said America's "goal is to deter them and we don’t want to go down a path of greater escalation that drives to a much broader conflict within the region." Neither does Iran, I would add.
Politico's final passage provides some chronologic and intensity context. "Since October, Iran proxies have hit U.S. and allied forces in the Middle East 158 times, though so far they have caused only minor injuries and damage to infrastructure."
The passage should have read not "so far they have caused," but "until today they caused." And until today, President Biden had hoped — that being all he had — that Iran-backed proxies would do no greater harm than those minor injuries.
Again, the same with Iran. For all we know, Iran's leaders are furious with today's attacking militia group, its attack being more than its sponsor wanted. It's likely, or at least quite possible, the group revealed to Iran nothing of its plan beforehand.
These militants are smart and they're knowledgeable. And one thing they know is that U.S. intelligence has excellent eavesdropping capabilities concerning Iran. Had the militia group provided Iran with a heads-up, U.S. intel would also have been the first to know, as would the targeted U.S. military. The group's plan would have been blown — and become an instantly useless plan.
(Note: Assuming the above is accurate, Politico's headline is greatly misleading. It announces the service members were killed in "an Iran-backed drone attack." The proxy group is Iran-backed, not necessarily the drone attack. There's a possible regional-war difference.)
U.S. intel capabilities also explain why Iran almost certainly had no foreknowledge of Hamas' 7 October attack on Israel. The Palestinian group knew as well as other Iranian proxies that American ears were always listening.
This I mention for an encouraging reason. When Iranian leaders explain through backchannels that they were unaware of the forthcoming attack, Biden will probably believe them, since it's also probably true. That, then, would translate into U.S. retaliation against the proxy alone.
Both sides could then return to lobbing only "minor injury" explosives and flying relatively harmless drones. We hope.
Comments