Biden must take a tougher stance on Iran and the Houthis | The Hill
Category: Op/Ed
Via: vic-eldred • 11 months ago • 25 commentsBy: Douglas E. Schoen and Saul Mangel (The Hill)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
As the war between Israel and Hamas continues, the threat posed by Yemen's Houthi rebels looms large, with risks not just to international shipping but also to global peace and security.
And as recent reporting by the Wall Street Journal (which has now been confirmed by the White House) reveals, Iran's direct involvement aiding the Houthis - providing weapons and targeting assistance - means the United States and President Biden must take a tougher stance against both the Houthis and their masters in Tehran if the U.S. hopes to stabilize the region.
The establishment of an international naval task force to protect ships transiting the Red Sea is a start but will ultimately matter little if the U.S. military is shackled by political concerns over the chances of a direct confrontation with Iran, the mastermind behind much of the chaos gripping the Middle East.
Indeed, from the outset of Israel's war against Hamas - which began when Hamas invaded Israel, slaughtered 1,200 Israelis and took roughly 240 hostages - Iran has unleashed its proxies in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Syria, Iraq and Yemen against American and Israeli targets.
Unfortunately, the U.S. has often failed to respond, or done so only symbolically, with airstrikes on targets with little to no military value, to avoid fueling a wider war in the region.
In that same vein, the ever-present risk of a full-blown war between Israel and Hezbollah continues to grow. And should that erupt, the scale of destruction in the Middle East would be unprecedented, given Hezbollah's considerable arsenal and Israel's determination to permanently end the threat to their northern border.
To be clear, this is not to argue for the start of a new war between the U.S. and Iran or its proxies, but rather to point out that without a strong, robust show of force against Iran and its terrorist allies, the risks of an all-out war increase significantly.
Moreover, the Biden administration must realize that their hopes of reaching a diplomatic accord with Iran are all but dead, leaving only one remaining option to rollback Iran's malign influence short of war: the credible threat of an overwhelming military response.
The costs of allowing the Houthis to act without fear of consequences are already being realized. After multiple cargo ships were struck by Houthi rockets, the world's major shipping companies have announced they will divert cargo away from the Red Sea and Suez Canal routes in favor of the much-longer trip around the Horn of Africa, which will raise costs and further fuel inflation.
Further, and more importantly, allowing Iranian-backed terrorist groups to act with impunity directly threatens the thousands of American soldiers based in Iraq and Syria who have come under dozens of rocket and missile attacks since the war between Israel and Hamas began.
There are also invisible, but arguably more important, costs: The loss of America's deterrence is not tangible, but it is more dangerous than increased prices. The Biden administration has now overseen the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and failed to stop Russia's war against Ukraine. And now our adversaries - both nation states and terrorist groups - feel they can threaten the U.S. and our allies with impunity.
At the head of this snake is Iran, which has long viewed its support for terrorist groups stretching from Lebanon to Yemen as a strategic priority - a way to attack Israel and the U.S. with plausible deniability - including reportedly training Hamas members just weeks before their Oct. 7 attack.
Iran has funded, trained and armed these groups. But it is highly unlikely that Tehran would be willing to risk letting these groups drag it into a direct military clash against the United States — a risk that Biden must make the mullahs understand is closer than Tehran may feel comfortable with.
For now, the evidence is overwhelmingly clear: The Iranian regime feels it can threaten the U.S. and Israel, and even attack American troops without fear of reprisal from a White House fearful of igniting a war in an election year.
Biden's fear of a wider war is also handcuffing Israel, which would prefer to respond to Houthi drone and rocket attacks against the southern Israeli city of Eilat but is being held back by the White House, which has told Israel the U.S. will handle the threat.
Immediately after Hamas's Oct. 7 attack, Biden admirably dispatched two aircraft carriers to the Middle East as a show of force, and a warning to Iran, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups not to intervene. But the warning was not taken seriously. If it had been, rebels armed with little aside from cheap drones and Iranian rockets would not feel empowered to declare sovereignty over one of the world's most important waterways.
To be sure, the Houthis present the kind of asymmetric threat that the U.S. military often struggles to confront. But that is no excuse for surrendering to them and Iran without so much as a threat of retaliation.
There are domestic political considerations as well. Diplomatic outreach to Tehran had been a core component of Biden's foreign policy agenda (which just 35 percent of Americans approve of, per Quinnipiac polling), and America's inability to present a credible military threat against Tehran will only harm perceptions of Biden's handling of America's foreign policy.
This is not to argue that the U.S. should preemptively attack Iran, Hezbollah or the Houthis. However, throughout history, when the United States has failed to take a tough stance against actors that seek to threaten global security, we are forced to act eventually, often from a much weaker position.
With the lessons of history in mind, if President Biden wants to avoid a wider war, he must make it abundantly clear to Tehran that unless it reins in its terrorist proxies, the full force of the United States military is ready to defend the values of peace and security throughout the entire Middle East.
Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg. His new book is "The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat." Saul Mangel is a senior strategist at Schoen Cooperman Research.
Tags Houthis Iran Israel Israel-Hamas conflict Joe Biden Syria United States US-Israel relations Yemen.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Tags
Who is online
665 visitors
In 3 days, those US carrier groups could take down Iran's entire military structure.
One has to wonder what Biden's military advisors are thinking.
Biden cannot even secure our borders and people expect him to stand up to the Houthies?
Biden could stand up but chooses not to as he tries to placate the broad left fringe of his party.
Deterrence is based on the other side believing that the forces at your disposal would be used if necessary.
Iran obviously doesn't think Biden would ever pull the trigger, nor do I think he would. Thus, the constant attacks on US forces and international shipping.
File under magical thinking ( unwarranted patriotic thinking )
They are thinking about the years leading up to the last days in Saigon, the Battle for Mogadishu
and the Kabul International Airport...
Yeah, Biden would need a much better plan than the one he used for withdrawal from Afghanistan.
When I read that the Houthis had actually targeted an American warship I couldn't understand why they weren't taught a lesson that would have made them think twice about it. Now Iran has brought a destroyer into the Red Sea, so I guess Iran will control it rather than the US controlling it. Let's see where that goes.
Traitor Joe is a coward.
I guess the rest of the world knows Biden won't do anything that could touch off a major conflict or new war because of the impending November elections so it can be a free-for-all. Due to the shipping route changes there will be a little inflation for consumers to deal with.
He's a coward. Plain and simple. Elections have nothing to do with it. 2 wars kicked off. Why? Because the world knows Traitor Joe is a coward.
I think it was in the New York Times that reported via sources that senior military advisors are all but begging Biden to do something. I can't recall the title of the piece right now.
Remember Viet Nam?
Who could forget unless you are under 60 years old.
Never been there.
What are our troops doing in Iraq and Syria still?
Iraq is controlled by a mostly Shai government that is loyal to Iran. The Iranian militias operate in Iraq with the government's blessing. Meanwhile the Iraqi government's relations with the US is tenuous at best.
As for Syria (sigh),Trump was supposed to have gotten the US out; but he allowed himself to be swayed to hold the Syrian oil fields. The Syrian government has told the US to remove our troops and end air strikes in Syria multiple times- over the course of both the Obama, Trump, and now Biden administrations.
The attacks in both Iraq and Syria by Iranian militias didn't just start. In Iraq they have been going on since Bush Jr stupidly thought free and open elections would give Iraq a pro Western government. He made the same mistake in the West Bank/Gaza with the Palestinians by forcing Hamas (a known terrorist organization even back then) to be included. Same with Syria where Obama began backing anti government Syrian rebels.
What do we expect putting US troops in two hostile war torn countries?
As for starting a war with Iran. The time for that passed when they developed the capability of processing weapons grade nuclear material. While they may not have the means to hit the US directly by missile; they do have a highly trained terrorist network with the means to deploy a dirty nuclear bomb. Given are wide open southern border; and known Iranian, Syrian, and Palestinian nationals crossing it- what are the chances Iran already has the network needed here to strike the US?
Those two Carrier groups could level Iran in less than a week. Biden must still think he has a chance for a deal.
I am not disagreeing with you. The US can win a military war with Iran.
I just don't trust Iran to fight a "fair" war. Really don't want to see 9/11 the dirty nuclear bomb version anywhere in the US.
As for Brandon- he is dead wrong about Iran. The sanctions Trump had in place should never have been released. Now that they are Brandon will never get that genie back into the bottle. Even our NATO allies want Iranian oil. Russia and China would never let it happen on their end. Iran hates weakness; and Brandon is as weak as they come.
I said it when the US first announced they were going to put 3/4ths of the US navy off the ME coast (1/2 of it dedicated to Israel defense). His half ass measures will get US servicemen killed. Nothing like having floating targets that are incapable of responding for the Houthi and Hezbollah. Such a wide variety of targets for the Iranians to test their drones and shore to ship missile on.
That is coming regardless of what we do. They are firing on US installations all over the middle east even as Joe Biden kisses their ass.
As for Brandon- he is dead wrong about Iran. The sanctions Trump had in place should never have been released. Now that they are Brandon will never get that genie back into the bottle. Even our NATO allies want Iranian oil. Russia and China would never let it happen on their end. Iran hates weakness; and Brandon is as weak as they come.
Another one of those policies that lefties here tell us is simply a matter of opinion.
I said it when the US first announced they were going to put 3/4ths of the US navy off the ME coast (1/2 of it dedicated to Israel defense). His half ass measures will get US servicemen killed. Nothing like having floating targets that are incapable of responding for the Houthi and Hezbollah. Such a wide variety of targets for the Iranians to test their drones and shore to ship missile on.
Just one failure on the defense and it happens.
Would you explain exactly how the two carrier groups can level Iran in less than a week? I'm sure that they could cause an awful lot of damage to Iran, but considering that Iran has an Air Force and a Navy, granted nothing compared to the US but good enough to inflict some serious damage to the US strike groups.
They also have advanced air defense systems and long-range ground-to-sea missles and a fleet of between 17 and 27 submarines. If we attacked them rest assured we would have to hit Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and the Houties in Yemen.
After we ''leveled Iran'' what would we do then send in ground forces, tanks, arty and then fight on their ground which they know like the back of their hand will cost us numerous KIA/WIA.
One thing that seems to happen quite often is amateurs along with overconfident pros underestimate the enemy, even though we've done it more than once.
Their favorite song
How terrible to be thinking that about such a stabilizing regime in the ME and such stalwarts for democracy for their people.
Magical memories, forget the cake walks in 'Nam, Beirut, Mogadishu, Iraq and Afghanistan. /s
Yup, those wars were going to be over in a couple of weeks or months at the worst since they were backward savages and didn't have air power/sea power, how could they possible last more than a month or two?
Funny, I remember hearing something similar about Iraqi forces, Serbian forces, and in fact every organized military that the US has faced.
In the end they all turn out to be paper tigers.
I am not worried about Iran's regular military. I am sure the US has accurate numbers on all of them- and their capabilities. If their subs were capable of hiding from US detection I am sure the military would be spending a lot more on upgrading our current ships to get the advantage. Instead of creating more versatile unseaworthy disasters wasting US tax payer money that will never see combat.
What would give the US headaches is Iran's militias/terrorist groups. Ones that can blend in with regular civilians (especially in the ME) any time they want to. Which is the reason we shouldn't have US troops in Iraq and Syria anyways. We can play wack a terrorist all day w/o ever setting foot in those countries. The real problems would be any cells already in the US, or coming to the US. We aren't exactly a hard country to get into these days.
As for Iran. Did we ever send in ground forces to Libya? How about Serbia? We wrecked those two country's infrastructures, their military capabilities, and their governments w/o organized military (Obama claimed his troops wore sneakers- meaning CIA/Special Ops in Libya) on the ground. Do the same in Iran and let the chips fall where they may. If Iran's government gets weakened to the same point that Libya and Serbia were their people might not be so accommodating of it. Same in Iraq- I am sure the minority Sunni and Kurds would love to take over the Shai dominated government that is loyal to Iran. As for Syria- we are already backing Syrian rebels bent on removing the Assad government. I am sure that Lebanon would love it if we removed Hezbollah and the Iranians training, arming, and funding them. They might even join in- once it is proven we were going to stop until those groups were weakened to the point they were no longer a threat. We can also destroy the Houthi w/o massive problems as well.
Three major negatives with all of this.
1) Iranian militia/terrorist attacks here in the US and across the ME. Those might occur anyways; just not on the scale we would see if the US went to war with Iran.
2) We would piss the Saudis off even more by attacking the Houthi- who would resume drone attacks on the Saudi oil fields. The Saudis are already pissed at Brandon and moving closer to Russia and China that would seal the deal.
3) We don't have the resources now to equip our military to sustain a prolong offensive thanks to two proxy wars draining our coffers. Simple solution is we stop funding Ukraine and Israel. Ukraine is Europe's problem- past time they took care of it. If they don't want to- then Ukraine isn't that much an asset to anyone- other than to piss Russia off and drain their military and financial resources. As for Israel- they don't need our money/weapons- they prove that repeatedly by not listening to us when it matters. They would be thankful for us removing Iran as long term threat, and diminishing Hezbollah in Lebanon. I am sure they would gripe about losing US funding and advance military weapons; but they can then do what they want to with the Palestinians w/o listening to the US. We will let the UN handle them; and stop protecting them in the Security Council.
Long term positives.
1) We show China/Russia/North Korea that we are willing to fight; and what our real military capabilities are in war.
2) We remove one of "the Axis of Evil" countries. That alone would hurt Russia on the Ukraine front; after losing Iranian supplied weapons, drones, etc.
3) It would drive Russian and China even closer together. Maybe that will pound it into Brandon's and Democrat's heads that China is not our ally. They are not our economic competitor. They are our adversary on the world stage; and are bent on domination if we let them.
You misunderstood by comment, we lost those ''wars'' and ten of thousands of Americans KIA and hundreds of thousands WIA.
Nam, 58,200 KIA with thousands more dying later from wounds/agent Orange and suicide.
Beruit, 242 KIA, Marines, Army and Navy hundreds more wounded.
Mogadishu, Iraq, and Afghanistan. All the same, dead Americans and nothing gained.
The population of Serbia is 9 million and Liyba is 7 million compared to Iran 88 million there is no comparison. Additionally Iran has tens of thousands of proxies across the M/E.
If we didn't send ground troops in after the bombing you are simply allowing Iran to rebuild and strike.