Insights into the public's attitude toward American troops in Syria, attacks on U.S. troops and danger of war with Iran, and more.

DRAWDOWN

Why are we in Syria, and should we be?

From January 8–15, 2024, DEFP commissioned YouGov to conduct a poll regarding public attitudes towards the continuing presence of U.S. troops in Syria and American involvement in the region's escalating crisis. The poll was featured in USA Today.

Most of those polled were not aware that American troops were deployed or under attack in Syria. Respondents indicated their opposition to a U.S. military presence in the region would increase if American troops were killed. The poll was conducted before January 28, when 3 American soldiers were killed and 40 injured on the Jordan-Syria border by a Shia militia drone attack.

Most respondents also said they were concerned that the presence of American troops in Syria could escalate into a broader regional conflict. Among those who did not support the U.S. mission in Syria, two-thirds concluded it was a waste of resources.

See the full poll here.

For more analysis, see DEFP Visiting Fellow Will Walldorf's piece in TIME.

CHARTED

Risks of attacks and escalation

Militias backed by Iran have launched at least 166 attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan since October 7. [The New York Times / Eric Schmitt]
A drone attack on a U.S. base in Syria killed six Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) fighters on February 5. [BBC / David Gritten]
A U.S. warship in the Red Sea narrowly avoided being hit by a Houthi-fired cruise missile on Tuesday. [CNN / Brad Lendon]
Despite expanding its retaliatory airstrikes against Iran backed militias, neither they nor Tehran appear deterred. [NBC News / Dan DeLuce, et al.]
Secretary of State Antony Blinken has returned to the Middle East for a new round of shuttle diplomacy with leaders in the region. [AP / Matthew Lee, et al.]

Withdraw U.S. forces

Writing in December, DEFP Fellow Daniel DePetris argued that "U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq are at significant risk as long as they remain deployed there."
- "[T]here is no good reason to risk U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq," DePetris claims. "ISIS's capabilities have been degraded, capable local actors eagerly hunt the group's remnants, and the United States can still strike from long distance, if necessary, without local bases."
- Instead, the U.S troop presence "pointlessly risks war with Iran," and "grants U.S. adversaries in the region added leverage by giving them the ability to threaten U.S. forces." [DEFP / DePetris]
- Read the full report: "Withdraw U.S. Troops from Syria and Iraq."
DEFP Contributing Fellow Geoff LaMear calls for the "Reagan option," referring to the former President's order to withdraw U.S. troops from Beirut following the barracks bombing in 1983 that left hundreds of American personnel dead and wounded. [UnHerd / Geoff LaMear]
- LaMear notes that "[n]o stake in the region is commensurate with the loss that would be incurred by stumbling into a war with a regional power in the Middle East" such as Iran.

For more, watch this recent DEFP panel discussion:Does the Middle East still matter?

Quoted

"Previous U.S. strikes in Iraq and Syria over the last three months failed to deter much of anything and in fact contributed to the ongoing tit-for-tat dynamics we see today[. . .] This has less to do with a lack of U.S. resolve and more to do with the inherent difficulties of influencing the decisionmaking of non-state actors, who don't have to worry about defending territory, regime preservation, or maintaining a favorable balance of power."

— DEFP Fellow Daniel DePetris, quoted in "Joe Biden faces Republican wrath for 'anemic' Iran response." [Newsweek / Brendan Cole]

Upcoming livestream

Can Ukraine still win? Evaluating U.S. interests and policy options

2023 shifted the war in Ukraine in Russia's favor: Ukraine's failed counteroffensive, the firing of Ukraine's top general, diminishing Western support, and more. How should U.S. policy deal with Ukraine's changed fortunes?

Please join Defense Priorities on Tuesday, February 20 for a thoughtful discussion on these important issues, featuring Michael Kofman, Emma Ashford, Daniel Davis, and Benjamin Friedman.

Sober Analysis

The U.S. had to respond to the attack in Jordan—but it shouldn't attack inside Iran

[MSNBC / Rajan Menon and Daniel DePetris]

Some pundits and lawmakers want Biden to include Iran itself on its list of targets[…]

Underlying all of this chest-thumping is the assumption that U.S. military action would be so painful that Iranian leaders would respond the way we would like them to: by standing down and ordering their proxies in the Middle East to cease further attacks against U.S. troops and installations in the region. Unfortunately, this is a low-probability scenario.

Iran's reaction might confound our expectations. Embarrassed and angered after being struck by American bombs, Iran could up the ante and attack U.S. troops and bases. Washington's extensive military presence in the region, while commonly viewed as a source of strength, may prove to be a vulnerability by providing Iran a long menu of targets to strike.

Read the full analysis here.

Mark your calendar

Lecture: "Globalization of the U.S. defense supply chain"

[SAIS / Edwin O. Reischauer Center for East Asian Studies Seminar Series]

Speaker: Dr. Eugene Gholz, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame

When: Thursday, February 8, 2024, 4:30–6:00 PM

Where: 555 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington D.C., 20002, room 222

See event info here.

Do Americans want U.S. troops in the Middle East?