By ELLEN KNICKMEYER and LOLITA C. BALDOR
WASHINGTON (AP) — Shortly 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 carefully observing and listening to Iran's actions and words to assess how Tehran might react.
Experts and diplomats point out various ways Iran could retaliate.
Since Oct. 7, Iran and its allied regional militias in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen have been conducting calculated attacks that fall short of provoking a full-scale conflict involving Iran's homeland forces or Hezbollah in a war with Israel or the United States.
Apart from targeting U.S. troops, potential Iranian retaliation could involve a limited missile strike from Iran to Israel, in response to Israel's attack on Iranian soil in Damascus.
A concentrated attack on a U.S. position abroad similar to the 1983 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut is possible, but unlikely due to the significant U.S. retaliation it would provoke, according to analysts. Iran could also escalate its efforts to target Trump-era officials behind the 2020 drone killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. 1983 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut is possible, but seems unlikely given the scale of U.S. retaliation that would draw, analysts say. Iran also could escalate an existing effort to kill Trump-era officials behind the United States’ 2020 drone killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
The extent of any other retaliation and potential escalation may depend on two factors beyond U.S. control: Whether Iran wants to maintain current regional hostilities or escalate, and whether Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s far-right government does.
Sina Toossi, a fellow at the Center for International Policy, stated that analysts in Iran are trying to interpret Netanyahu’s intentions following the attack, struggling to choose between two competing narratives for Israel’s objective.
“One perceives Israel’s actions as a deliberate provocation of war that Iran should respond to with restraint,” Toossi wrote in the U.S.-based think tank’s journal. “The other suggests that Israel is capitalizing on Iran’s typically restrained responses,” and that failing to respond in kind will only embolden Israel.
Ultimately, Iran’s belief that it is already achieving its strategic goals as the Hamas-Israel war continues — raising the Palestinian cause and damaging Israel's global reputation — might be the most influential factor in persuading Iranian leaders not to risk open conflict with Israel or the U.S. in their response to Monday’s airstrike, according to some analysts and diplomats.
Shira Efron, a director of policy research at the U.S.-based Israel Policy Forum, dismissed suggestions that Netanyahu was actively trying to involve the U.S. in a potentially decisive conflict alongside Israel against their common rivals, at least for now.
“First, the risk of escalation has increased. No doubt,” Efron said.
“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.
The U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller has been increasingly highlighting Israel's long-term need for weapons, to protect itself from Iran and Iranian-allied Hezbollah in Lebanon, amid growing criticism of U.S. military support for Israel's war in Gaza.
Miller stated that the U.S. is always worried about anything that could make the situation worse, following the attack in Damascus. He emphasized that the administration has been working to prevent the conflict from spreading since October 7th, while acknowledging Israel's right to defend itself from its sworn enemies.
For years, Israel has been targeting Iranian proxies and their locations in the area, undermining their ability to grow stronger and cause problems for Israelis.
Since the attack by Hamas on October 7th, which shattered Israel’s sense of security, Netanyahu’s government has increasingly targeted Iranian security operatives and leaders in the region. Hamas is considered a terrorist group by the U.S., Canada, and EU.
The U.S. military has increased its involvement from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea since the Hamas-Israel war began. It has deployed aircraft carriers to the region to discourage attacks against Israel and carried out 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 aid delivery to Palestinian civilians, despite challenges such as Israel's restrictions and attacks on aid shipments.
