Israel is attempting to create a regional defensive alliance to counter Iran. The U.S. is being asked to approve the transfer of new laser air defenses from Israel to the Saudis and Emiratis. But creating an extensive alliance to counter Iran is neither necessary nor beneficial to U.S. interests.
Backing Iran into a corner with further escalation is likely to backfire. Iran already has a heightened threat perception from months of high-profile assassinations of its scientists and intelligence personnel, as well as attacks attributed to Israel. Iran is also bracing for a possible Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities, and creating a regional alliance is more likely to invite than to deter Iranian attacks.
Consider that the U.S. tit-for-tat cycle of escalation in 2019 and 2020 ended with Iranian missile attacks on U.S. troops. More recently, Lebanese cyberattacks targeted Israeli firms in response to Israel’s sabotage campaign. Repeating a cycle of hostility that has already proved disastrous isn’t just imprudent, it’s irresponsible.
What’s more, the proposed laser defenses don’t counter ballistic or cruise missiles, the main threats Gulf states face from Iran. Furthering this alliance will disrupt diplomacy with Iran without offering additional protection to the states involved. This signals to Iran that its adversaries have formalized military ties, and Iran will likely respond with an arms buildup. Iran’s missile program and its support to proxies will be encouraged, not curtailed.
The defense budgets of Israel, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia dwarf Iran’s defense budget. These states enjoy a conventional advantage against Iran that is already overwhelming. Upending the regional balance unnecessarily complicates ongoing Iranian-Saudi diplomacy and encourages these parties to jettison talks altogether. With the ongoing nuclear negotiations, the importance of diplomacy is paramount.
Defensive alliances are not necessarily seen as defensive by the opposing side. Increased Arab-Israeli military cooperation justifies Iran’s forward defense strategy of arming proxies. This is more dangerous for all involved, and the United States should not stumble into an entanglement that invites confrontation.
Rubber-stamping a military alliance against Iran is likely to reverberate against the United States directly. U.S. interests in the region are limited, and joining a potential conflict with Iran would further raise oil prices – painful enough to Americans already hurting at the pump – but it would also risk the lives of thousands of U.S. service members in the region. Doing so at the expense rather than the benefit of the American people is reckless.
Instead of adding fuel to the fire, the U.S. should try to decrease Iran’s threat perception. Foremost is keeping diplomacy first in resolving the nuclear issue. The idea of resorting to a “Plan B,” a military option, to counter Iran’s nuclear program, should be abandoned. Public messaging to the contrary only undermines U.S. efforts to achieve a mutually beneficial deal.
A military strike also wouldn’t guarantee that Iran never goes nuclear. But a war would guarantee severe costs, both from the high costs of military operations, and its impact on oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. American consumers would immediately feel the economic impact of a war with Iran, and their posterity would be paying for many years after.
The logic of striking Iran ignores the alternative. Deterrence can be achieved regardless of the status of the nuclear deal. Iran doesn’t need a hostile alliance or the threat of military attacks to understand that it is the underdog. The U.S. can bolster deterrence by ruling out military action, which discourages Iran’s asymmetric strategy of proxies. The U.S. can also discourage aggression by ending economic sanctions. The potential economic cost that Iran pays in conducting attacks would then be higher. With the continuation of the sanctions campaign, Iranian attacks bring no penalty.
The U.S. would be better poised to work towards a detente with Iran. In the short term, the U.S. should prevent its technology from being transferred as part of a new alliance. Doing so would encourage diplomacy to take place. A stable balance of power is better for promoting peace than upending that natural balance. In the long term, the U.S. should disengage itself from the Gulf states’ affairs, rather than getting further mixed up in them.
Geoff LaMear is a Fellow at Defense Priorities. The views expressed are the author's own.
Read Full Article »
