Swap Biden’s weak Iran strategy for escalation dominance.
Recent events call for a new approach to America’s Iran policy
Recent events have underscored the urgent need for a reconsideration of America’s Iran policy. In response to constant drone attacks on American bases, which resulted in injuries to more than two dozen U.S. military personnel and one fatality, the U.S. dispatched an F-16 and F-15 to bomb weapons and ammunition storage areas in Syria connected to Iran’s chief terror arm, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
But this anemic response has not stopped Iranian aggression via its proxy forces, and will likely lead to further escalation by Iran — at a time and place of Iran’s choosing.
Understanding Escalation Dominance
- Escalation dominance is rooted in the idea that a state should possess both the capabilities and the will to control the escalation of hostilities.
- By controlling the pace and scope of escalation, a state can effectively deter aggression and neutralize threats.
- Real dominance requires addressing the source of the problem directly.
Consider the strategy the U.S. has employed against Iranian proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon or various militias in Syria. These strategies perpetuate a never-ending cycle of violence without addressing the central issue: Iran itself. While limited strikes against Iranian proxies might offer temporary tactical gains, they do not influence Tehran’s strategic calculus — after all, Iran’s mullahs are more than willing to fight to the last Hamas or Hezbollah militant. In some cases, these actions can even play into Iran’s hands, allowing it to perpetuate a narrative of victimhood and rally its base around nationalist sentiments.
Economic Warfare as a Complement
The U.S. should also deploy economic measures directly against Iran’s critical assets. This means going beyond sanctions that hurt its proxy networks and instead focusing on its oil exports, which are the lifeblood of its economy. Creating internal economic pressures can catalyze domestic unrest, which in turn would curtail Iran’s vast regional ambitions.
The Trump administration had successfully implemented this policy. Biden unraveled it.
Changing the Dynamics Inside the Beltway
Finally, a revamped U.S. approach must also root out Iranian influence within American policy circles. Personnel decisions can be critical in determining the direction and effectiveness of America’s Iran policy. The U.S. needs decision-makers who understand the imperative of escalation dominance, rather than those who advocate for appeasement or proportional responses — or, as has been shown, may even harbor a degree of loyalty to the mullahs in Tehran.
The Biden administration’s proportional response strategy toward Iran can be attributed to an ideological commitment to diplomatic resolution and multilateralism. This approach aligns with the broader Democratic foreign policy framework, which favors negotiation and consensus-building over unilateral military action.
However, this strategy is interpreted as weakness by Tehran. A proportional approach fails to disrupt Iran’s long-term strategic calculations, allowing it to continue its aggressive regional activities with minimal risk. In contrast, a more robust strategy that employs the U.S. Navy directly against vulnerable Iranian assets would signal a willingness to challenge Iran’s escalatory behavior.
In the intricate chess game of geopolitics, a strategy of mere proportionality falls short against an adversary like Iran. Adopting a policy of escalation dominance allows the U.S. to seize the initiative, destabilize Iran’s grand strategy, and potentially bring Tehran back to the negotiation table under terms favorable to American and allied interests. Such a strategy, coupled with economic warfare and vigilance in internal policy formation, can forge a new path toward stability in the Middle East.
How can the U.S. work with its regional allies to effectively disrupt the activities of Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah and various militias in Syria?
Nted a maximum pressure campaign on Iran, imposing strict sanctions on its oil exports and other key sectors of its economy. While the effectiveness of these measures is a subject of debate, there is no denying that they have had a significant impact on Iran’s economy and put pressure on its leadership.
However, economic warfare alone is not enough to counter Iran’s aggressive actions and regional influence. It must be accompanied by a comprehensive strategy that takes into account the nuances of the region and the complexities of Iranian politics.
One crucial element of this strategy should be a more focused and targeted approach towards Iranian proxies. The U.S. should work closely with its regional allies to disrupt the activities of groups like Hezbollah and various militias in Syria. This can be achieved through intelligence sharing, joint operations, and supporting local forces that are actively fighting against these proxies.
Moreover, it is essential to engage with Iran’s primary antagonist, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states, to develop a coordinated regional response to Iranian aggression. By uniting the Arab states and presenting a united front, the U.S. can significantly enhance its deterrence capabilities and send a clear message to Iran that its malign activities will not go unanswered.
Additionally, diplomatic efforts should be intensified to address Iran’s nuclear program. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal, provided a framework for curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. However, the U.S. withdrew from the agreement in 2018, leading to heightened tensions and an increase in Iranian provocations.
A new approach should involve re-engaging with Iran and other parties to renegotiate a stronger and more comprehensive agreement that addresses not only the nuclear issue but also Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional activities. This approach would require patience, diplomacy, and a willingness to find common ground.
Lastly, the U.S. should leverage its relationships with international partners to build a broader coalition to counter Iran’s influence. Engaging European allies, who were parties to the JCPOA, as well as countries like Russia and China, will be crucial in fostering a united front against Iranian aggression.
In conclusion, recent events have highlighted the urgent need for a new approach to America’s Iran policy. Escalation dominance, economic warfare, targeted efforts against proxies, diplomatic engagement, and building a broad coalition are key elements of a comprehensive strategy to effectively address Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region. The window of opportunity to implement such a strategy may be limited, and failure to act decisively could lead to further escalation and threats to U.S. security interests.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
