By Geoff LaMear
Deterring Iran doesn’t have to involve a massive U.S. presence or military action. Currently, the United States places between 45,000-65,000 troops in the Middle East at the cost of billions of dollars per month. Despite this, Washington’s costly strategy still fails to prevent the type of rocket attacks against U.S. personnel that occurred in December. With the U.S. reversing the decision to redeploy a carrier outside the Middle East, shortly after deploying an additional missile submarine and missile cruisers to deter Iran, we need to acknowledge that the current policy isn’t deterrence at all.
The current approach of deterrence through a large U.S. troop presence is ineffective at deterring Iran or its Iraqi militias. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attributed the recent rocket attack to Iran-backed militias. General Kenneth McKenzie, who heads U.S. forces in the Middle East, admitted the U.S. would have to tolerate a “low level of proxy attacks in the region.” The continuation of these attacks is an indictment of the current U.S. strategy. U.S. leaders need to acknowledge the current strategy doesn’t deter those attacks.
Proponents of maintaining the current presence in the Middle East misunderstand deterrence. The concept of “contested deterrence” emerged following the assassination of Soleimani in early 2020. But if deterrence is contested, then it isn’t deterrence. The Soviet Union never lobbed missiles at West Germany. If it had, we would rightly recognize this as a failure of deterrence. But when it comes to Iran, U.S. decision-makers are content to continue our strategy even as rockets rain down on the U.S. embassy.
This piece was originally published in The National Interest on January 5, 2021. Read more HERE.