Who was the goal of US retaliatory attacks?
The US response went beyond targeting al-Muqawam al-Islamiyah and al-Iraq or Islamic resistance movement in Iraqunit demanding accountability for the January 28 drone attack.
This term, Islamic Resistance in Iraq, doesn’t confer with a single group as such. Rather, it involves an umbrella organization that has brought together various Iran-backed militias in the region since around 2020.
Iran officially denied any involvement in the January 28 drone attack. However, it is understood that the Islamic Resistance Movement in Iraq belongs to a network of militias that Tehran supports with money, weapons and training through Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force.
In recent months, some of this network of Iran-backed militias have done just that admitted responsibility for over 150 attacks on bases housing US forces in Syria and Iraq.
As such, USA retaliatory strikes targeted greater than 85 sites in Iraq and Syria, all linked to Iran-backed groups and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The declared goal of the US operation is to discourage further aggression supported by Iran. In Syria specifically, the United States conducted several airstrikes that reportedly resulted in the death of no less than one person 18 members of the militia group and destruction of dozens of locations in Al-Mayadeen and Deir el-Zoura key stronghold of Iran-backed forces.
In Iraq, the Popular Mobilization Forces, a state security apparatus made up of Iran-backed groups, reported that US strikes had killed 16 of its membersincluding each warriors and medics.
The U.S. response was particularly forceful than other recent actions against such groups, reflecting an escalation in efforts to counter threats posed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its affiliates.
What can we find out about the network targeted by the strike?
Initially, the Islamic Resistance Movement in Iraq emerged as a response to foreign military presence and political interventions, especially later 2003 US-led invasion Iraq. The Islamic Resistance in Iraq was a collective term for pro-Heran Iraqi militias, allowing them to perform attacks under one banner. Over time, it evolved right into a front for Iran-backed militias operating outside Iraq, including in Syria and Lebanon.
Currently, the Islamic Resistance Movement in Iraq operates as a cohesive force relatively than a single entity. This implies that the network’s goals often overlap with Iran’s goal of maintaining influence in the region, but at the national level – in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon – the groups have their very own separate agendas.
Operating under the single banner of Islamic Resistance, these militias effectively hide the identity of the actual perpetrators of their operations. This was visible in deadly January 28, 2024, attack on Tower 22, an American military base in Jordan. While it is obvious that an Iran-backed militia orchestrated the drone strike, pinpointing a particular faction inside this broad coalition is difficult.
This deliberate strategy of concealing the specific source of attacks makes it difficult to directly attribute attacks and creates challenges for countries attempting to discover specific perpetrators and retaliate.
What effects do strikes have?
US Central Command he said on February 2 that the purpose of the operation is to significantly weaken the operational capabilities, weapons and supply networks of the IRGC and its Iran-backed proxies.
The attacks targeted key assets similar to command and control centers, intelligence facilities, missile storage sites, missiles, drones, and logistics and ammunition facilities. The goal is just not only to degrade their current operational infrastructure, but in addition to discourage future attacks.
The motion got here after the discovery Iranian-made drone utilized in the attack on Jordan.
As part of a broader technique to counter these groups, the United States has also done so introduced recent sanctions against IRGC officers and officials, revealed criminal charges against people involved in selling oil to Hamas and Hezbollah, and conducted computer attacks against Iran.
How will this affect Iran’s strategy in the region?
Before the US response on February 2, Kataib Hezbollah, an Iran-linked group, announced bus stop in attacks on American targets – a move seen as recognition of the serious consequences of the drone incident in Jordan.
It is feasible that the cessation was the result of pressure from Tehran, even though it was was met with skepticism in Washington.
Nevertheless, the developments show the mutual influence and autonomy between the so-called Axis of Resistance groups, which oppose the US presence in the Middle East and are supported to various degrees by Iran.
American air raids – combined with sanctions and prosecutions – function a multi-faceted technique to deter further aggression by Iran and its proxies. By targeting critical infrastructure similar to command and control centers, intelligence operations, and weapons caches, this approach goals to undermine Iran’s ability to project power in Syria and Iraq.
The comprehensive and broad nature The U.S. response signals a firm stance against threats to regional stability and U.S. interests.
The goal is to isolate Iran diplomatically and economically while squeezing its support for regional proxies. This underscores the United States’ commitment to countering Iranian influence that would potentially undermine Tehran’s regional engagement strategies, its negotiating stance, and its ability to form alliances.
However, the effectiveness of airstrikes and sanctions in deterring Iran-backed aggression stays uncertain. Historical trends suggest that similar U.S. actions since the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and as early as 2017 haven’t completely stopped attacks by Iran-backed groups.
The Biden administration’s approach seeks to navigate this landscape without escalation of the conflictfocusing on steering financial mechanisms supporting Iranian proxies. However, the impact and consequences of such sanctions on Iran and broader regional dynamics are complex.
In the short term, any direct U.S. retaliation against Iran’s interests could exacerbate regional tensions and exacerbate the cycle of tit-for-tat attacks between the U.S. and Iran-backed forces, increasing the risk of broader regional conflict. And on condition that the pretext for the attack is the war between Israel and Hamas, any U.S. response could not directly influence the course of that conflict, influencing future diplomatic efforts and the regional balance of power.
“Iran”forward defense strategy – focusing on countering external threats before they turn into threats inside its borders – would suggest that Iran will proceed to support proxy forces through weapons, financing and tactical knowledge limiting the influence and legitimacy of the United States and its allies in the region.
This underscores the delicate balance required in responding to Iran-backed aggression – geared toward protecting U.S. interests while stopping escalation right into a broader regional confrontation.