How will this affect Iran’s strategy in the region?Prior to the US response on Feb. 2, Kataib Hezbollah, a group linked to Iran, announced a halt in attacks on American targets – a move seen as recognizing the serious implications of the Jordan drone incident.It is possible that the cessation was the result of pressure from Tehran, though this has been met with skepticism in Washington.But the development nonetheless speaks to the interplay of influence and autonomy among the so-called Axis of Resistance groups, which oppose US presence in the Middle East and are supported by Iran to varying degrees.The US airstrikes – combined with sanctions and charges – serve as a multifaceted strategy to deter further aggression from Iran and its proxies. By targeting critical infrastructure such as command and control centers, intelligence operations and weapons storage facilities, the approach aims to undermine Iran’s ability to project power in Syria and Iraq.The comprehensive and broad nature of the US response signals a robust stance against threats to regional stability and US interests.The aim is to isolate Iran diplomatically and economically, while squeezing its support for regional proxies. This underscores a commitment by the US to counter Iranian influence that could potentially weaken Tehran’s regional engagement strategies, negotiation positions and capacity to form alliances.However, the effectiveness of airstrikes and sanctions in deterring Iranian-backed aggression remains uncertain. Historical trends suggest that similar US actions since the Oct. 7 Hamas assault in Israel, and as far back as 2017, have not completely halted attacks from Iranian-backed groups.The Biden administration’s approach seeks to navigate this landscape without escalating the conflict, focusing on targeting the financial mechanisms that support Iranian proxies. Yet the impact and repercussions of such sanctions on Iran and the broader regional dynamics is complex.In the short term, any direct US retaliation against Iranian interests could heighten regional tensions and exacerbate the cycle of tit-for-tat strikes between the US and Iranian-backed forces, increasing the risk of a broader regional conflict. And given that the attack’s pretext involves the Israel-Hamas war, any US response could indirectly affect the course of that conflict, impacting future diplomatic efforts and the regional balance of power.Iran’s “forward defense” strategy – focused on addressing threats externally before they become ones within its borders – would suggest that Iran will continue to support proxies through weaponry, funding and tactical knowledge to reduce the influence and legitimacy of the US and its allies in the region.This underscores the delicate balance required in responding to Iranian-backed aggression – aiming to safeguard US interests while preventing an escalation into a wider regional confrontation.
Source link
