Attacks in Syria attributed to Israel have become something of a routine, but American attacks from Syrian territory are more unusual. What led to last week's events and what can be learned from them?
On Wednesday morning (August 24, 2022), the US Army Central Command (CENTCOM) reported an attack on Iranian targets in Deir ez-Zor in northeastern Syria, near the town of Ayyash – a known Shiite stronghold in Deir ez-Zor, which is used as a strategic site for storing launchers and missiles and as a training base for the militias and Hezbollah. The American attack came in response to an August 15 attack by Iranian drones that took off from Iraq toward the American base in al-Tanf in Syria (on the border with Jordan and Iraq). The pro-Iranian militias did not remain idle and responded by firing rockets at two American bases in Deir ez-Zor, which led to the wounding of three soldiers. The Americans responded with fire, and a day later, fired again from helicopters at several militia targets in the city of al-Mayadin, killing several operatives.
Significance:
This was the third American attack in 36 hours and the most extensive one in Syria since 2018. There are about 900 American soldiers in Syria, most of whom are in the east (the rest in al-Tanf) and their presence – in contrast to the Iranian and Russian presence – is not legitimate in the eyes of the regime. The American presence has symbolic and operational importance, in terms of keeping the Iranians away from their goal of taking control of eastern Syria and the border with Iraq.
The American attacks took place with the talks on the nuclear agreement in the background, and reflect an American willingness to separate the nuclear issue from Iranian aggression in the region, while conveying the message the US will not ignore an attack on its forces as it did the past. Washington was careful to make it clear that it was not looking for military escalation. Unlike Israel’s campaign between wars, the American policy is reactive, and it is likely that Washington would not have approved attacking Iranian targets had it not been preceded by an attack against its forces.
Many of the attacks launched in recent years against American bases by Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria, including the current incident, were carried out in response to attacks attributed to Israel in Syria. Three insights can be gleaned from this:
- While there is a degree of deterrence vis-à-vis Israel and unwillingness to lead to deterioration, vis-à-vis the Americans the Iranian hand is quicker on the draw and probably receives Russian backing. The Iranians' reluctance to react against Israel also stems from limitations that Assad imposes on them, from the fear that a reaction from his territory will lead to all-out war and destabilization.
- The attacks and the reactions in both arenas reflect the Iranian rationale for entrenching itself in the region, that is, a connection between arenas and threats (attack in Syria – response from Iraq).
- It is possible the Iranian aggression toward the Americans is also intended to pressure them to restrain Israel from further attacks in Syria, and in the spirit of the times, perhaps even to signal to the US there will be consequences in the event of an Israeli attack against nuclear sites in Iran.
Attacks in Syria attributed to Israel have become something of a routine, but American attacks from Syrian territory are more unusual. What led to last week's events and what can be learned from them?
On Wednesday morning (August 24, 2022), the US Army Central Command (CENTCOM) reported an attack on Iranian targets in Deir ez-Zor in northeastern Syria, near the town of Ayyash – a known Shiite stronghold in Deir ez-Zor, which is used as a strategic site for storing launchers and missiles and as a training base for the militias and Hezbollah. The American attack came in response to an August 15 attack by Iranian drones that took off from Iraq toward the American base in al-Tanf in Syria (on the border with Jordan and Iraq). The pro-Iranian militias did not remain idle and responded by firing rockets at two American bases in Deir ez-Zor, which led to the wounding of three soldiers. The Americans responded with fire, and a day later, fired again from helicopters at several militia targets in the city of al-Mayadin, killing several operatives.
Significance:
This was the third American attack in 36 hours and the most extensive one in Syria since 2018. There are about 900 American soldiers in Syria, most of whom are in the east (the rest in al-Tanf) and their presence – in contrast to the Iranian and Russian presence – is not legitimate in the eyes of the regime. The American presence has symbolic and operational importance, in terms of keeping the Iranians away from their goal of taking control of eastern Syria and the border with Iraq.
The American attacks took place with the talks on the nuclear agreement in the background, and reflect an American willingness to separate the nuclear issue from Iranian aggression in the region, while conveying the message the US will not ignore an attack on its forces as it did the past. Washington was careful to make it clear that it was not looking for military escalation. Unlike Israel’s campaign between wars, the American policy is reactive, and it is likely that Washington would not have approved attacking Iranian targets had it not been preceded by an attack against its forces.
Many of the attacks launched in recent years against American bases by Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria, including the current incident, were carried out in response to attacks attributed to Israel in Syria. Three insights can be gleaned from this: