On January 3, Iran’s leadership will mourn the one-year anniversary of the U.S. air strike that killed General Qassem Soleimani of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the senior commander of Iran’s Iraqi militia Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. And the world seems concerned about the possibility of an impending armed conflict in the Middle East, as Iranian-sponsored Iraqi militias increase rocket attacks on U.S. locations and bombing of road trains, and the US flies B-52 bombers. and position the toughest in the Navy. reaching attack forces in the Gulf.
Several observers speculated that a violent confrontation with Iran would be President Donald Trump’s final and most destabilizing act in office. But there is every possibility that the revenge of Soleimani and Muhandis may be the first crisis of the Biden government.
The evidence for a post-January. The confrontation has been building up for a few weeks. Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, warned on December 16 that Iran’s revenge would come “in its own time and place” and therefore not necessarily under Trump, who promised to counterattack if the Americans were harmed. Inside Iraq, the main Iranian-backed militia, Kataib Hezbollah, warned against revenge attacks until Trump was gone, and even Mohammed al-Hashemi, an Iraqi government envoy sent to Iran, was quoted in the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar begging Tehran to remain calm “until the Biden government replaces Trump with the presidency”.
Iran may restrict its militia partners until the end of the Trump administration, but perhaps not much later. In US government internal circles, where threats are assessed, the January 20 transition is seen as a dangerous (and overlooked) window for escalation. One of Joe Biden’s first tasks may be to respond to a fatal attack against Americans in Iraq, Syria or the Gulf region.
Iraq is in the habit of presenting initial challenges to new presidents: Bill Clinton’s first use of force was in Iraq, the June 1993 cruise missile attacks that avenged Saddam Hussein’s efforts to assassinate former President George Herbert Walker Bush two months earlier. President George W. Bush’s first use of force was also in Iraq – a flurry of air strikes in February 2001 that angered Bush when he interrupted his first trip abroad (to Mexico).
A new president’s first military crisis can be a pivotal moment, especially when high-powered competitors and rebel states evaluate the new leader. Biden would need to weigh the consequences of the action or inaction: part of his political base would want to distinguish the new administration from the old one and extend an open hand to Iran, while traditionalist foreign policy would emphasize the need to demonstrate firmness, especially if an American is dead.
The best outcome for everyone is that Iran and its representatives recognize that attacking U.S. interests under Biden’s supervision is in no sense safer or less consequential than risking such a move under Trump. The president-elect must clearly communicate before January 20 that he will be ready, in the first minute, on the first day, to respond firmly to any threat to the Americans.
On January 20, the new government is also expected to discreetly signal to Iran that its hand is outstretched, but that revenge against Trump is still revenge against the United States and would pose additional obstacles on the way to easing sanctions.
***
The new Biden team are having trouble gaining access to the information normally provided during a transition. A very initial priority should be a review of the military options that have been prepared, in order to familiarize the team and allow them to request additions and deletions quickly. Biden’s experienced national security team, especially the nominee for Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, a former commander of US forces in the Middle East, knows that difficult times after an attack are not the right time to catch up or find out that there are no military options that pass the test.
If Iran or Iran-backed militias in Iraq really attack American interests too late for Trump to react, or early in Biden’s presidency, there will be a tension between quickly achieving deterrence and establishing US credibility against a careful assessment of facts and options.
If the attack is powerful enough to kill Americans – who are normally well protected – then it may have received a green light from Iran, but the next government can wait to verify that connection. Clinton waited 72 days before attacking the Iraqi intelligence service for his role in the attempt on Bush’s life in 1993.
If evidence of an Iranian role emerges, then a Biden government – like Clinton’s before, but hopefully faster – should not shy away from doing the right thing to prevent future attacks on Americans. Only if Iran believes this to be the case, will they hesitate to attack US personnel.
What the US can and must do immediately is signal a cost for any attack on Americans, strike back against Iran’s extended network and maintain the option of broader attacks. Whenever rocket attacks and bombings have taken place against US forces in Iraq this year, the network responsible for the attacks has been made very clear to the US intelligence community in hours or days: some combination of the three vanguard groups in Iraq’s networks – Kata’ib Hezbollah, Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq and Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba. These groups are vulnerable to attack and are already attacking the US
Iranian militia partners are working hard every day to obscure the attribution of attacks to US targets in Iraq, spawning a surprising number of new brands like Ashab al-Kahf (“Cave Companions”) and Sarayat Qassem al-Jabbarin (“Oppressor Destruction Company”). On March 13, these tactics successfully prevented Britain from joining a United States attack in Iraq to avenge the murder of the militia of two Americans and a British. British jets were fueled and armed on the runway while government lawyers discussed who was really to blame and who should be the target. In the end, the Trump administration failed to persuade the British that Kata’ib Hezbollah was the right target and British officials refused to allow their jets to take off. The Biden administration will strengthen deterrence if it does not allow potential attackers to play this cover game.
While the opening on January 20 is an exciting time for Joe Biden and his team, it is also a time when his courage can be tested. History shows that Iran is investigating the resolution of US governments and that it can simultaneously poke an American president and sit at the negotiating table. Iran is struggling to prevent its representatives from seeking revenge, but may see the opening of a Biden government as the first safe time to do so. All other potential attackers in the world will be watching and taking notes.