What will we find out about the group that claimed responsibility?
Al-Muqawama al-Islamiyah fi al-Iraq which translates as Islamic resistance movement in Iraqhas admitted responsibility for a drone attack.
However, the Islamic Resistance Movement in Iraq just isn’t itself a single group. Rather, it’s a term used to describe an umbrella organization that has brought together various Iran-backed militias in the region since around 2020.
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 moderately than a single entity – that’s, as a network whose goals often align with Iran’s goal of retaining influence in the region, but at the domestic level the groups have their very own distinct agendas.
The collective is understood for its staunchly anti-American stance and dynamic military campaignsfor instance the recent one two-day drone surgery geared toward US forces at an Iraqi air base.
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 evident that an Iran-backed militia orchestrated the drone strike, identifying a selected faction inside this broad coalition stays elusive.
This deliberate strategy makes direct attribution difficult and creates challenges for countries trying to discover specific perpetrators and retaliate.
What do they hope to achieve by attacking a U.S. goal?
Iran-backed militias were attacks on American forces intensifying in recent months in response to US support for Israel in the Israel-Hamas conflict, in addition to to assert regional influence.
Since the starting of the conflict in October 2023, Iranian-backed militias they struck repeatedly US military bases in Iraq and Syria, recently expanding its attacks into northeastern Jordan near the border with Syria.
However, the deadly attack on January 28 marks a big escalation – this is the first an example of the incontrovertible fact that American soldiers died during the Israel-Hamas war.
An attack is forming in Jordan a part of the strategy by Iran-backed militias to counter Washington’s support for Israel in the Gaza conflict. But it also goals to achieve the broader goal of completely pushing U.S. forces out of the Middle East.
By coordinating attacks by the Islamic Resistance Movement in Iraq, these groups are trying to present a unified stance against U.S. interests and policies, demonstrating their collective strength and strategic alignment across the region.
What role did Iran play in the attack?
Iran has officially denied any involvement in a drone attack.
However, it is understood that the Islamic Resistance Movement in Iraq belongs to a network of militant groups supported by Tehran.
Iran, through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, does he provided such a militia money, weapons and training. However, Iran’s scope of command and coordination in specific incidents, equivalent to the attack in Jordan, stays unclear. At this stage, more concrete evidence is required to firmly link Iran.
As an authority on Iran Nakissa Jahanbani and I recently explained in an article for The Conversation that Iran’s strategy in the region involves supporting and financing militia groups while giving them a level of autonomy.
In this fashion, Iran credibly denies attacks carried out by its proxies.
So while Iran’s direct involvement in the attack has not been definitively established, Tehran’s long-standing support for groups equivalent to the Islamic Resistance Movement in Iraq is well documented and plays a big role in regional conflict dynamics and geopolitical strategies.
What options does the United States have to respond?
It is unclear how the United States intends to respond to the attack. The Biden administration faces complex dynamics when it comes to responding to attacks linked to Iran-backed militias.
However, a decisive military attack is the option the Biden administration has chosen seems to be watchingtargeting Iran directly on its own territory is fraught with risk and might be seen as a step too far.
AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin
Even when targeting Iranian interests or personnel, as in the killing of Quds Force General Qassem Soleimani, the U.S. carried out these activities outside Iran.
Iran’s denial of direct involvement in the attack further complicates the situation and reduces the likelihood that the United States will attack Iran in retaliatory strikes.
However, adopting a targeted approach, equivalent to a strike by militia leaders outside Iran, raises questions on the effectiveness of U.S. tactics in deterring Iran and its proxies.
This strategy has been used in the past, however it has not significantly stopped the aggressive actions of Iran or its proxies. The problem is that while such attacks are precise, they might not be enough to stop ongoing or future attacks.
The key to the strategy’s success may lie in identifying the most influential aspects, or “centers of gravity,” that may effectively influence Iran’s behavior. This means identifying key leaders, critical infrastructure or economic assets that, if killed, destroyed or seized, could significantly alter Iran’s decision-making or operational capabilities.
The need for the Biden administration to balance a powerful response with geopolitical consequences highlights the difficulties in coping with a tense and evolving situation.
How could the attack impact the broader conflict in the Middle East?
The United States’ response could change the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East and influence the dynamics of warfare in the region.
A strong military response from Washington could discourage Iran-backed militias from future attacks, however it could also provoke them to take more aggressive motion.
In the short term, any U.S. retaliation – especially whether it is aimed directly at Iran’s interests – could escalate tensions in the region.
It could also exacerbate the tit-for-tat cycle between U.S. and Iranian-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, affecting future diplomatic efforts and the regional balance of power.