How the US can strike back at Iran?

By James Stavridis

With the attack against US troops in the Middle East over the weekend, President Joe Biden’s administration is going to have to respond with a new level of force within days. There are reportedly three dead US servicemen and 25 wounded at a base in Jordan after a drone attack that Biden said “was carried out by radical Iran-backed militant groups operating in Syria and Iraq.” Added to the two Navy SEALS who died in an accident in the Arabian Sea earlier this month, this is a significant casualty count.

What will the Pentagon leaders be considering as they prepare options for the president? How strongly should the US respond?

The first order of business is to increase the already high level of intelligence devoted to the Middle East. This is bad news for our combatant commanders in Europe and the Pacific, who must compete with US Central Command for satellite, drone, cyber and other intelligence assets. But given the deaths of American military personnel, job No. 1 for the next several weeks will be collecting information on Iran and its proxies. Once a significant amount of intelligence is in hand, we should release to the public all the evidence that links Iran directly to these attacks. The mullahs cannot be allowed to hide behind their proxies either ashore or at sea.

Next, US Cyber Command and the National Security Agency— working closely with their counterparts at the Central Intelligence Agency, should be prepping a significant cyberattack on Iran. These agencies often, with good reason, hold back on their full offensive capability to keep secret the technology behind their cyber tools.

But this is a moment where using some of the best capabilities we have makes sense— going after Iranian command and control, severing Tehran’s connectivity to its proxy forces, penetrating its oil and gas infrastructure, and reducing its armament production (some of which heads to Russia and kills America’s Ukrainian partners).

On the intelligence side, the CIA should ramp up efforts to create, fund and operationalize our own proxies against Iran. There is a growing resistance to Iran internally— not surprising given the regime’s long history of poor governance and economic mismanagement, and we should do all we can to help it. This includes increasing efforts to communicate with opposition forces in Iran and using social media to let dissatisfied Iranians know how they can best degrade their rotten theocracy.

US allies can help, especially those in the region. We should remember that this attack was not only on US troops, but apparently also against close security partner Jordan. (The Jordanians initially said the attack occurred just over the border in Syria, but either way the kingdom should consider itself an open target.) Jordan’s intelligence services — among the best in the region— can be helpful to us.

Through all its Gulf partners, the US needs to pass a direct message to Iran that says, “We are hitting back, and the next round of strikes will be an order of magnitude greater.”

And, frankly, Israel could help by working with the US and its Arab partners to craft a cease-fire to effect further hostage releases held in Gaza. If we end up in a serious elevated conflict with Iran, there will have to be less direct US support to Israel, as our weapons systems and ammunition will need to be directed against the mullahs. Israeli leaders must realize US resources are not infinite.

In terms of adding military heft, the president should order another carrier strike group to the region, joining the two already there. This would add another 80 combat aircraft and hundreds of Tomahawk missiles to the arsenal of US Central Command.

The Pentagon should be developing a full campaign plan with 5-7 days of continuous strikes against proxy targets in Syria and Yemen. We need to coordinate with the Iraqi leadership as well, as we may need to expand strikes to their country. (Yes, Iran exercises a great deal of influence there, but Iraq is a sovereign nation, not a puppet.)

These attacks should hit, in descending order of priority: sites that have launched missiles or drones at US forces; ammunition and fuel storage areas that support them; and proxies’ command-and-control centers. After an initial round of strikes, our battle damage assessment should suggest a second round to clean up any missed target sets.

Even as this air-and-missile campaign against Iranian proxies unfolds, the Pentagon should generate detailed strike plans to go after Iranian targets themselves. These could include warships operating in support of Yemen’s Houthis (for example, an Iranian frigate was deployed to the Red Sea at the beginning of the year). One option might be to board and seize an Iranian naval or commercial vessel and exploit it for intelligence and evidence.

Another target set could be Iranian oil and gas platforms in the Arabian Gulf. Even more controversially, the Pentagon could consider strikes against Iranian military command-and-control sites, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps headquarters (the proxy forces are mainly trained, equipped, organized and directed by the IRGC).

All of this should be accompanied by public and private messaging to Tehran that the US does not want a full-on conflict. But we need to convince the Iranians that we are serious in our determination to keep US forces safe, and to retaliate massively if necessary.

All of these factors present Biden with tough choices, especially in the midst of an election year. And it is not hard to imagine Russian President Vladimir Putin encouraging the mullahs to escalate, in hopes of weakening US support to Ukraine. No one wants a war in the Middle East, but Iran must be made to see that we are not afraid of one either.