By ELLEN KNICKMEYER and LOLITA C. BALDOR
WASHINGTON (AP) — Soon after an airstrike widely attributed to Israel destroyed an Iranian consulate building in Syria, the United States had an urgent message for Iran: We had nothing to do with it.
But that may not be enough for the U.S. to avoid retaliation targeting its forces in the region. A top U.S. commander warned on Wednesday of danger to American troops.
And if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent broadening of targeted strikes on adversaries around the region to include Iranian security operatives and leaders deepens regional hostilities, analysts say, it’s not clear the United States can avoid being pulled into deeper regional conflict as well.
The Biden administration insists it had no advance knowledge of the airstrike Monday. But the United States is closely tied to Israel’s military regardless. The U.S. remains Israel’s indispensable ally and unstinting supplier of weapons, responsible for some 70% of Israeli weapon imports and an estimated 15% of Israel’s defense budget. That includes providing the kind of advanced aircraft and munitions that appear to have been employed in the attack.
Israel hasn’t acknowledged a role in the airstrike, but Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said Tuesday that the U.S. has assessed Israel was responsible.
Multiple arms of Iran’s government served notice that they would hold the United States accountable for the fiery attack. The strike, in the Syrian capital of Damascus, killed senior commanders of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for Syria and Lebanon, an officer of the powerful Iran-allied Hezbollah militia in Lebanon, and others.
American forces in Syria and Iraq already are frequent targets when Iran and its regional allies seek retaliation for strikes by Israelis, notes Charles Lister, the Syria program director for the Middle East Institute.
“What the Iranians have always done for years when they have felt most aggressively targeted by Israel is not to hit back at Israelis, but Americans,” seeing them as soft targets in the region, Lister said.
On Wednesday in Washington, the top U.S. Air Force commander for the Middle East, Lt. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, said Iran’s assertion that the U.S. bears responsibility for Israeli actions could bring an end to a pause in militia attacks on U.S. forces that has lasted since early February.
He said he sees no specific threat to U.S. troops right now, but “I am concerned because of the Iranian rhetoric talking about the U.S., that there could be a risk to our forces.”
U.S. officials have recorded more than 150 attacks by Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria on U.S. forces at bases in those countries since war between Hamas and Israel began on Oct. 7.
One, in late January, killed three U.S. service members and injured dozens more at a base in Jordan.
In retaliation, the U.S. launched a massive air assault, hitting more than 85 targets at seven locations in Iraq and Syria, including command and control headquarters, drone and ammunition storage sites and other facilities connected to the militias or the IRGC’s Quds Force, the Guard’s expeditionary unit that handles Tehran’s relationship with and arming of regional militias. There have been no publicly reported attacks on U.S. troops in the region since that response.
Grynkewich informed reporters that the U.S. is closely observing and listening to Iran's words and actions to assess how Tehran may react.
Experts and diplomats point out various ways Iran could respond.
Since October 7, Iran and its allied regional militias in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen have been carrying out calculated attacks to avoid a full-scale conflict that could bring Iran's forces or Hezbollah into a war with Israel or the United States.
Apart from targeting U.S. troops, potential Iranian retaliation could involve a limited missile strike directly from Iran to Israel as a response to Israel's attack on Iranian soil in Damascus.
A focused attack on a U.S. position abroad on the level of the 1983 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut is possible, but unlikely due to the expected strong U.S. response. Iran may also intensify ongoing efforts to eliminate Trump-era officials linked to the 2020 drone killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
The extent of any further retaliation and potential escalation may hinge on two factors beyond U.S. influence: Iran's decision to maintain current regional hostilities or escalate, and the actions of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's far-right government.
Sina Toossi, a fellow at the Center for International Policy, stated that analysts in Iran are wrestling with interpreting Netanyahu's motives since the attack, as they struggle to choose between two competing explanations for Israel's intentions.
Toossi wrote in the think tank's journal that one view sees Israel's actions as a deliberate provocation of war, which Iran should respond to with restraint. The other view holds that Israel is taking advantage of Iran's typically restrained responses, and not reciprocating will only empower Israel.
Fundamentally, Iran's belief that it is achieving its strategic objectives as the Hamas-Israel conflict continues — raising the profile of the Palestinian cause and weakening Israel's global support — may be the most influential factor in persuading Iranian leaders not to risk open warfare with Israel or the U.S. in their response to Monday's airstrike, according to some experts and diplomats.
Shira Efron, a director of policy research at the U.S.-based Israel Policy Forum, dismissed the idea that Netanyahu was actively attempting to draw the U.S. into a significant conflict with Israel's common adversaries, at least for now.
Efron stated, “First, the risk of escalation has increased. No doubt.”
“I don’t think Netanyahu is interested in full-blown war though,” she said. “And whereas in the past Israel was thought to be interested in drawing the U.S. into a greater conflict, even if the desire still exists in some circles, it is not more than wishful thinking at the moment.”
U.S. President Joe Biden is facing pressure from the other direction.
So far he’s resisting calls from growing numbers of Democratic lawmakers and voters to limit the flow of American arms to Israel as a way to press Netanyahu to ease Israeli military killing of civilians in Gaza and to heed other U.S. appeals.
As criticism of the U.S. military support for Israel's war in Gaza has increased, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller has increasingly emphasized Israel's long-term need for weapons — to protect itself from Iran and Iranian-allied Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The U.S. is always worried about anything that could escalate,” Miller said after the attack in Damascus. “Since October 7th, it has been a goal of this administration to prevent the conflict from spreading, while recognizing Israel's right to defend itself from adversaries sworn to destroy it.”
For years, Israel has targeted Iranian proxies and their locations in the region, weakening their ability to grow stronger and cause trouble for Israelis.
Since the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas, one of the Iran-aligned groups in the region, which shattered Israel’s sense of security, Netanyahu’s government has increasingly added Iranian security operatives and leaders to target lists in the region, according to Lister. The U.S., Canada, and EU have designated Hamas as a terrorist group.
The U.S. military has increased its involvement from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea since the start of the Hamas-Israel war, sending aircraft carriers to the region to deter rear-guard attacks against Israel, and launching airstrikes to stop attacks on shipping by Iran-allied Houthis in Yemen.
The U.S. is also working to construct a pier off Gaza to facilitate more aid to Palestinian civilians, despite challenges including Israel’s restrictions and attacks on aid deliveries.
