Biden Targets Iran but Avoids Direct Strikes... Adjusts Intensity to Prevent Escalation

Retaliatory Attacks by Iran-Linked Forces in Iraq and Syria Immediately After Repatriation of Deceased US Troops
Weak Image Dispelled Ahead of Presidential Election... Escalation Depends on Iran's Response

Six days after three U.S. soldiers stationed in Jordan were killed in a drone attack by pro-Iranian militias, a U.S. retaliatory strike was carried out on the 2nd (local time). This retaliatory attack, ordered by President Joe Biden, targeted Iran, the 'hot potato' of Middle East peace, but did not directly strike inside Iranian territory, reflecting a delicate 'compromise' aimed at preventing escalation in the Middle East.

First, attention should be paid to the scale and targets of this attack. According to the U.S. Central Command and foreign media reports, the U.S. deployed not only forces stationed around the Middle East but also strategic bombers B-1 Lancer flown from the U.S. mainland, striking more than 85 targets in Iraq and Syria with over 125 precision weapons. The facilities hit included operational command and control centers, storage warehouses for rockets, missiles, and drones. Local media in Syria and elsewhere reported casualties as well.

The Central Command stated that the airstrikes targeted "the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force and affiliated militias." The U.S. unleashed massive force against Iran, which it identified as behind the attacks on U.S. bases, but struck only 'Iran-related facilities' in Syria and Iraq, avoiding direct attacks inside Iranian territory.

Furthermore, President Biden indicated in a statement that "retaliatory attacks will continue at a time and place of our choosing," suggesting this was not the end. John Kirby, White House National Security Council (NSC) Coordinator for Strategic Communications, said, "We are not seeking war with Iran," and CNN reported, citing senior U.S. officials, that the U.S. has no intention of attacking inside Iran.

The U.S. made it clear that while it retaliated against Iran and sent a warning message, it has no intention of engaging in direct conflict with Iran. The U.S. has long held Iran responsible for providing weapons and training to allied groups, including Kata'ib Hezbollah, which it identified as the perpetrators of attacks causing U.S. military deaths. Although no direct evidence was presented that Iran ordered the militia attacks, Iran was designated as the comprehensive backer of the Middle East's largest anti-American and anti-Israel forces. Against this backdrop, the retaliatory strike targeting Iran but excluding Iranian territory reflects President Biden's dilemma as he seeks re-election in November amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas war that began in October last year.

Since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war, U.S. forces stationed in the Middle East have been continuously attacked by pro-Iranian militias, culminating in significant casualties with three deaths and over 40 wounded. There is no disagreement that the U.S. had no choice but to launch a large-scale retaliatory strike. Particularly, some Republicans in the opposition party strongly criticized the Biden administration's foreign policy and demanded direct attacks on Iran. This put President Biden in a position where failure to respond decisively could have damaged his image as a strong leader ahead of the election. Moreover, the timing coincides with former President Donald Trump dominating the Republican primaries, maximizing the convention effect and widening the gap in polls against Biden.

Whether timing considerations played a role is unclear, but President Biden's attendance at the return ceremony for the fallen soldiers just before the large-scale retaliatory strike appeared to be an effort to demonstrate resolve as commander-in-chief to the public. At the same time, the Biden administration has maintained its stance against 'war with Iran' and 'escalation in the Middle East' even after the U.S. deaths, and the exclusion of Iranian territory in the first retaliatory strike is seen as a 'calibration' mindful of the consequences of a direct confrontation with Iran.

So far, the Biden administration has mediated hostage releases and ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas and encouraged the resumption of Israel-Saudi Arabia normalization talks, seeking to stabilize the Middle East situation. From this perspective, a direct confrontation with Iran would shake the entire Middle East policy to its roots and disrupt plans to stabilize the external environment ahead of the election.

In this context, Secretary of State Antony Blinken's visits from the 4th to the 8th to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar are interpreted as a signal to combine retaliation for the U.S. deaths with diplomacy to quickly resolve Middle East issues. Given the unpredictable developments depending on Iran's response, Blinken is expected to focus on preventing escalation and maintaining momentum for hostage release and ceasefire negotiations during his fifth Middle East visit since the outbreak of the conflict.

However, whether the U.S. desire to avoid escalation will be realized largely depends on Iran's and pro-Iranian forces' follow-up responses to this retaliatory strike. Should Iran directly attack U.S. forces in the Middle East or increase overt support to pro-Iranian militias, the U.S. may have no choice but to consider a 'strong medicine'?a direct retaliatory strike inside Iran. Consequently, some question whether the initial declaration of no intention to attack inside Iran will be effective as a deterrent against Iran.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.