Regional US designs and Iranian military answers

“I think of the military build-up of the United States of America together with the developments in Syria, the election of a new president in Iraq, the appointment of prime ministers, and all the processes that reflect the division within Iraq, and even the sending of imprisoned ISIS members to Iraq. In fact, the United States is currently trying to shape the Middle East in accordance with its national security strategy with a containment strategy it has created on Iraq.”

This is the evaluation of Fahri Erenel, retired general of Turkish Armed Forces and a researcher at the Istinye University.

Part of it was the mediation of an agreement between Israel and Syria, which permitted Damascus to establish control over its territories without being attacked by Tel Aviv, says the general. The transfer of ISIS terrorists from Syria to Iraq also helps Syrian Interim President Al Sharaa.

Here, Erenel points to a change of nature regarding the Syrian government. “Although they come from an ISIS background, they have cut their ties and changed position. Despite their past as a terror organization, today they represent and national state.”

By supporting Al Sharaa and sending ISIS members to Iraq, the US tries to cut Iranian influence in Syria, he says, even with the chance of using the latter on Iraqi soil against Iran.

Hence, Trump tries to assert control over Syria and, as far as possible, Iraq, to lower the costs of a possible military intervention. “This is a guiding principle of him.”

For the retired general, a directed, focused US attack is “of course possible”. But Washington needs to take more into account China, he adds.

“Since the 12-day-war, Iran has succeeded n cutting of the Starlink connections over its territory. This was the first time Starlink was defeated. True that Iran has developed an own defense. But several sources indicate that systems of electronic warfare were provided by China and also in cooperation with Russia. Hence, I think Iran has cooperated with these two countries in its current victory over Elon Musk.”

The general has another argument, why US attacks may prove useless. “Since the revolution of 79, everything has a sibling in Iran, because they saw in the period of the Shah the weakness of relying on one source only. They started, for instance, with the military, with the Armed Forces and the Revolutionary Guards being established in parallel, both being constitutional.”

Erenel says that after small, focused attacks, a negotiation may start, with the reformist government pushing forward and the religious leadership, from its moderates, giving way to it. Lifting of some sanctions may then follow from the US side.

But Iran has some strong cards to play in case of an attack. “Iran has cruise missiles, which it has not used in the 12-day-war. They have a range of 1000 km and were tested in the Gulf. No radar was able to detect them. Using these missiles against the US navy, coming over the sea surface, might present a serious danger for the US aircraft carrier. Secondly, Iran has repleted the missiles it used against Israel. Another important factor.”

The geopolitical context favors a US attack, says Erenel. “Russia is focused on its war in Ukraine, seeking maximum gains. China will not interfere militarily, as its strategy is different. An occupation of Iran isn’t possible, and a limited attack will be condemned by these countries, without more action.”

At the same time, the retired general points to talks continuing in Oman between the American and Iranian delegations, a process “that one should observe”.

For him, the entire tension may also lead to an agreement regarding Iran’s very old, investment-needing oil refineries, where US companies get a share of.

Fahri Erenel takes a balance, were limited attacks are the most probable option, also given the build-up, with Iranian air force pretty weak, but missile defense and offense systems presenting a serious threat to US military in West Asia.