Biden's options range from unsatisfactory to risky after Americans are killed

Even before the drone strike that killed three U.S. service members in Jordan on Sunday, the Biden administration was planning a moment like this, discussing how it might strike back in a way that would deter Iran's proxy forces and send a message would tell Tehran not to do that. to miss.

But the options range from unsatisfactory to very risky.

Mr Biden could order attacks on the proxy forces, a major escalation from the swatting attacks it has carried out in Syria, Iraq and Yemen in recent weeks. So far, these attacks have dented the capabilities of the Iranian-backed groups, which have carried out more than 160 attacks. But they have failed, as Mr. Biden himself noted 10 days ago, to deter those groups.

Mr. Biden could decide to go after Iran's suppliers of drones and missiles, perhaps including on Iranian soil, which poses a much greater risk. His first targets could be members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, many of whom are based in Syria and Iraq. Depending on how these attacks are carried out, it could open a new front in the war, with a much more powerful opponent, and push Tehran to accelerate its nuclear program.

In short, it would force Mr. Biden to do everything he has tried to avoid thus far.

There are options in between, officials say, and strikes could be combined with back-channel messages to the Iranians to cushion the blow and not escalate. Such signals have been successful before, including after the American-ordered assassination of Qassim Suleimani, the head of the powerful Quds Force, in 2020. Then, as now, there were fears of an all-out war in the Middle East which would lead to the United States and its allies against Iran and its allies. Both sides withdrew.

But the brew of political pressure, military calculations and regional fragility is very different today than it was four years ago, even as there are indications that Iran does not want to go to war immediately either, especially when its own economy is weak.

“There are no right choices, but the deaths and injuries of so many American troops and SEALs demand a strong response,” said James G. Stavridis, the retired Navy admiral who now works for the Carlyle Group, a global investment firm .

“A multi-day air campaign against all allies, coupled with a 'last chance warning' to Iran is justified,” he said. “The Pentagon should create options that directly counter Iran's weapons production facilities, naval assets and intelligence systems, in case the mullahs want to do another round. A strong offensive cyber attack would be another viable option, alone or in combination with kinetic attacks.”

Because Iran has been an adversary for so long, spanning eight presidencies, there is no shortage of such options. The United States has identified the major drone factories and their foreign suppliers fueling Russian attacks in Ukraine and supplying Hezbollah, the Houthis and other proxy groups. (It is not yet clear whether the drone, or drones, that killed Americans in Jordan on Sunday were Iranian-made, but that was the working assumption of US officials.)

US forces have mapped out attacks on Iranian missile sites and air bases in case a conflict breaks out between Iran and Israel. There was even a detailed cyber attack option against Iran, codenamed “Nitro Zeus,” to take out Iran's air defenses, communications systems and crucial parts of its power grid. That plan was shelved in 2015 after Iran and six other countries reached a nuclear deal. Israel has been conspicuously practicing bombings, simulating attacks on the Natanz nuclear enrichment site and its deep underground alternate site called Fordow.

But no one pulled the trigger on these plans for good reason: neither Washington nor Tehran saw a way out of the cycle of strikes and counterattacks once a full-scale conflict broke out. And while American officials were confident that the United States would ultimately prevail, the potential for harm to American allies, especially Israel, seemed difficult to imagine. Even President Donald J. Trump backed out of a planned strike.

None of these considerations were reflected in the social media posts and press releases issued Sunday by Republicans who have criticized Biden's responses as too calibrated. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called for “crippling costs” for Iran, “not just for terrorists on the front lines, but also for their Iranian sponsors who wear American blood as a badge of honor.” Senator John Cornyn, the Texas Republican, demanded attacks on Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, its military elite – and the guardians of its nuclear program.

“Maybe it's time to kill another Iranian general?” Representative Daniel Crenshaw, also of Texas, wrote on social media on Sunday about the attack on Suleimani. “That might be the right message.” Mr. Crenshaw is a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, where he lost an eye in an explosion.

Such calls have an undeniable political appeal, especially at the start of an election year, and no one has been louder than Mr. Trump — who made no mention of his own misgivings about killing Iranians and escalating a conflict while in office. Even Biden's own aides acknowledge that everything they have done so far to “restore deterrence,” to use the military term about their efforts, has not achieved its intended goal.

But it is not yet clear who exactly Mr. Biden wants to deter. U.S. intelligence officials say that while Iran provides weapons, financing and sometimes intelligence to its proxy groups, there is no evidence it is in control — meaning it may not have known about the attack in Jordan in advance .

The Iranian-backed militias calling themselves the Axis of Resistance claimed responsibility for the attack on the outpost in Jordan, saying it was a “continuation of our approach to resistance against US occupation forces in Iraq and the region.”

A spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry, Nasser Kanaani, said at a news conference in Tehran on Monday that the militias “do not take orders” from Iran and act independently. It's a convenient argument that perpetuates a sense of denial for Tehran.

But the speed with which Iran tried to distance itself from the attack, rather than embrace it, underscored that the downside of using proxies is the same as the upside: Tehran will be blamed for everything the militias do, even actions that the Iranians consider to be too much. provocative.

“This is the inherent risk of Iran's proxy war strategy,” said Ray Takeyh, an Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. “It has been brilliantly successful, but only if the retaliation targets proxies and not Iran's own territory. Now there is a real risk that things in the region will spiral even further out of control.”

Mr. Biden is running out of middle-ground options. Sanctions have been exhausted; There is hardly a sector of the Iranian economy that the United States and Europe are not already punishing, and China continues to buy Iranian oil. He could authorize “attack packages” against a variety of proxies, but that would embolden some of them and give some of them the status they crave as legitimate American enemies.

And at Admiral Stavridis' suggestion, it could look at cyberattacks, more covert, deniable ways to make a point. But the lesson of the past decade of cyber conflict with Iran – in both directions – is that it looks easier in the movies than in reality. Gaining access to critical networks is difficult, and having lasting impact is even harder. The most famous US-Israeli cyberattack on Iran, targeting its nuclear centrifuges fifteen years ago, delayed the nuclear program for a year or two but did not bankrupt it.

And that is now Mr. Biden's challenge: In the middle of the election, with two wars going on, he must end Iranian sponsorship of attacks on Americans — without starting a new war.