How to understand US attacks on pro-Iranian militias in Iraq and Syria

(CNN) — They sounded devastating, and probably felt the same way to the pro-Iranian fighters who received them. But Friday night’s airstrikes on more than 80 targets in Iraq and Syria were a comparatively limited response to what was — so far — the worst loss of U.S. military lives in the region in nearly three years.

It tried to be loud this Friday night, but it probably won’t be for long. US Central Command reported that the United States had deployed heavy bombers – B-1B Lancers – to attack 85 targets at seven locations. Attacks can be expected to cause greater damage when the sun rises. But that was hardly the most painful thing the Pentagon was capable of delivering.

There may be more; US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin suggested this was the beginning. But according to the White House, the US response this Friday lasted only 30 minutes. It was brief, perhaps loud, but no shock.

It was a clear and calculated choice. The Biden administration faces a nearly impossible task: striking hard enough to show you mean it, but also making sure your opponent can absorb the blow without striking back. The United States had telegraphed its response for more than five days, with high-ranking officials reporting on its nature and seriousness, and even hinting at its motives.

The purpose of this warning was probably to reduce the risk of misunderstanding and perhaps to allow the attacking militia to change location and minimize loss of life. It is also possible that their goal was to ensure that American attacks were not confused with Israeli attacks, which could provoke retaliation against Israelis and risk another cycle of escalation.

This instability reduced Biden’s options to a fraction of American capabilities. When his predecessor Donald Trump assassinated Iran’s highest-ranking military leader, Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, in 2020, the region was far from the brink. But the risk of fire in 2024 is the highest it has been in decades. Mistakes, or unexpected successes, can cause upheaval, and lead to inevitable and widespread conflict.

It is almost miraculous that four months after the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’ attack on Israel and the current assault on Gaza, no widespread conflict has broken out in the Middle East. (In fact, it’s worth wondering whether the past few months haven’t been enough for colleagues Prima facie Palestinian intervention, what would it entail?) Still, as of Friday, despite a slow rise in tensions between the United States, its allies and several proxies for Iran, a widespread war was unlikely.

Wars generally occur in those rare cases when both sides want it, or on more common occasions when the parties determine that open conflict is inevitable, or sometimes when they have exhausted diplomatic space. Or they stumble upon them through a wild cycle of growth.

Neither Iran nor the United States wants war. The Biden administration has elections just around the corner, in which it does not need another expensive foreign adventure, problems over its policy toward Israel or rising oil prices. Iran’s economy is faltering, internal unrest is still a distant memory, and its broader objectives are disproportionate regional influence, leveraging its technological ties with Moscow, and the apparent rapid pursuit of nuclear weapons.

President Joe Biden and Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, attends the dignified transfer of the remains of Army Reserve Sergeants William Rivers, Kennedy Sanders and Breonna Moffett at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, Feb. 2, 2024. (Credit: Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

It is because of this crisis – which is rarely talked about, but is noisy in the background – that perhaps Tehran and Washington are happy to avoid their direct confrontation. Since October 7, Iran has increased its uranium enrichment above 83%, raising fears that it is getting closer to the ability to make a nuclear bomb, something it insists it is not. Wants.

The UN watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has suggested that Iranian uranium enrichment may be slowing in recent weeks, but that the possibility of nuclear proliferation is again close. Meanwhile, Washington is content to keep this looming crisis out of its talks. And Tehran is content to provoke its main adversaries, solve its internal problems and avoid broader conflict.

The Biden administration is likely to be criticized for not using the same forceful and direct approach as Trump in 2020. However, the notion that power is the only means of displaying power is dangerous. The United States can inflict great harm wherever and whenever it wants. Biden’s decision so far not to send many other Americans to die in a broader conflict in the name of avenging the deaths of his three comrades is not a weakness, but a recognition that power is defined by its measured use. His critics would do well to remember that Trump’s audacious assassination of Soleimani did not stop us from getting to this point.