FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 18, 2024
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Israel has reportedly struck a number of sites in Iran. Defense Priorities Fellow Daniel DePetris issued the following statement in response:

“Israel’s airstrike against Iranian military targets in Isfahan is an unmistakable escalation. It is also unnecessary and potentially dangerous, particularly for the tens of thousands of U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East who are now at risk of Iranian retaliation.

“While Israel has the right to make its own decisions, President Biden was correct to push for immediate deescalation after Iran’s reprisal attack against Israel last weekend. Operationally speaking, that attack was a failure, with 99% of the Iranian drones and missiles shot down and the damage limited. Ideally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would have accepted this situation as the visible victory it was, refrained from further strikes and gotten back to the status-quo. Instead, he has chosen a second round.

“If the U.S. military didn’t have such a heavy force presence in the region, perhaps the tit-for-tat between Israel and Iran would be of little consequence. But this simply isn’t the world we live in. Iranian officials have already telegraphed to Israel, the U.S., and Arab governments that any further Israeli action will produce an even harsher response. U.S. policymakers will now have to prepare for a range of escalatory scenarios, up to and including additional drone and rocket attacks from Iranian-backed proxies on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria after a two-month hiatus.

“President Biden should be abundantly clear: The U.S. will not engage in offensive action against Iran. Another war in the Middle East is the last thing the U.S. needs or wants. The most effective way to reduce the chances of one is to pull out of Iraq and Syria and bring U.S. objectives in the region in line with our legitimate interests.”

DEFP report: Considering the utility of an Iranian nuclear bomb

DEFP explainer: Understanding the Israel-Hamas war

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 13, 2024
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, Iran fired drones toward Israel, beginning its retaliatory attack weeks after an Israeli strike on its diplomatic facility in Syria. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin Friedman issued the following statement in response:

“Iran sending drones to attack Israel is lamentable. The United States should condemn Iran for this act and criticize the Israeli government for picking a distracting and unnecessary fight with Iran by attacking its diplomatic facilities in Syria, even as they prosecute their war in Gaza. In any case, the United States should not go to war with Iran on behalf of Israel or anyone else. The United States has no obvious security interest at stake in that fight.

“Of course, American sympathies lie mainly with the Israelis, who are practically U.S. allies. But the Israeli government has courted a fight with Iran, perhaps encouraged by the prospect of U.S. help in going after Iran. Instead of talking about “ironclad” support for Israel, the president should have made clear the U.S. support is limited and does not extend to all circumstances.

“War with Iran would imperil U.S. security for no obvious pay off. Rather than continuing to egg on conflict in the region by offering support and weapons to various quasi allies, the United States should be reducing its role and removing its forces. We should be tamping down tension, not standing by as our friends settle grudges in assurance of our backing.”

DEFP explainer: Withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and Iraq

DEFP explainer: Securing U.S. interests while avoiding a war with Iran

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 4, 2024
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, on the 75th anniversary of the founding of NATO, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Ukraine will eventually join NATO. Defense Priorities Fellow Christopher McCallion issued the following statement in response:

“The 75th anniversary of NATO highlights the historical anomaly of a military alliance lasting three-quarters of a century. This is a sign of longstanding obsolescence, not of continuing vitality.

“This deviation from the historical norm is even more striking given that the key conditions which gave rise to the alliance have not been in effect for nearly half of its existence. The power of the Russian Federation pales in comparison to that of its predecessor, the Soviet Union, and while industrialized Europe was devastated in the immediate wake of World War II, it has long since rebuilt its economic capacity—and with it, its latent independent military potential. European members of NATO possess more than enough combined material capability to balance and deter Russia, an adversary which has not been able to decisively defeat one of the poorest states on the continent after more than two years of costly fighting.

“The U.S. role in NATO ultimately comes down to its commitment to use nuclear weapons—and thereby risk national suicide—to deter a Russian invasion of the industrialized core of Europe. The post-Cold War expansion of NATO to include the former states of the Warsaw Pact was, in George Kennan’s words, ‘a fateful error’ that simultaneously undermined the credibility of the alliance while souring relations between post-Soviet Russia and the West, setting them on a course that has reached a disastrous culmination in Ukraine.

"Secretary of State Antony Blinken today reiterated his conviction that Ukraine will someday join NATO. This move would be reckless and further undermine the credibility of the alliance, as the United States and its European allies have already shown they are not willing to fight for Ukraine when its national survival is at stake.

“Some who celebrate this anniversary misinterpret the alliance as being the guarantor of trans-Atlantic economic, political, and cultural ties. The truth is almost certainly the inverse. The United States can steadily remove its military presence from Europe and shift security burdens to its wealthy allies while retaining the strong bonds of friendship and cooperation that benefit both sides of the Atlantic.

“Europeans are rightly nervous about the future of the alliance. It is unwise for Europeans to outsource their security to the United States when the U.S. has higher priorities at home and in Asia. If the United States scaled back its presence on the continent—and thereby European reliance on U.S. military power—European leaders would have far greater incentive to make good on their stated intention to pursue ‘strategic autonomy,' which would be better for both Europe and the United States.”

DEFP explainer: Grand strategy: ‘Shield of the republic’

DEFP explainer: Reconfiguring NATO: The case for burden shifting

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 2, 2024
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, the U.S. carried out strikes in Syria and Iraq as retaliation for the drone attack that killed three U.S. troops on the Jordan-Syria border earlier this week. Defense Priorities Fellow Daniel DePetris issued the following statement in response:

“The latest U.S. strikes on multiple militia targets in Iraq and Syria are meant in part to retaliate for the January 28 drone attack on a small U.S. facility in Jordan, which killed three U.S. troops and injured more than 40 others. President Biden is also trying to accomplish a bigger objective: degrade their capabilities to the point where the militias make the strategic decision to stop attacking U.S. forces in both countries.

“It’s unlikely to succeed. While the U.S. always reserves the right to defend its troops, it’s clear that 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 decision-making of non-state actors, who don’t have to worry about defending territory, regime preservation, or maintaining a favorable balance of power. For the militias in Iraq and Syria, their years-long desire to expel U.S. and foreign forces from both countries is unlikely to change regardless of how much firepower the U.S. employs and may even strengthen after this round of strikes.

“If reports are accurate, the U.S. aims to conduct similar strikes over a period of days, if not weeks. This military action may relieve some domestic political pressure, but it will not achieve the desired outcome of neutralizing the problems these militias represent. It will, however, undermine attempts to deescalate and avoid a broader war in the region.

“This episode should serve as a wake-up call to the futility of the current U.S. force posture in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq and Syria, where nearly 3,500 U.S. troops continue to operate in harm’s way on behalf of a counter-ISIS mission that was achieved nearly five years ago. With ISIS’s territorial caliphate destroyed nearly five years ago, the Iraqi government increasingly inclined for U.S. troops to leave, and a state in Syria that is too weak to matter, there is no justification for our current policy. The risks and costs simply outweigh the rewards.”

DEFP report: Withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and Iraq

DEFP explainer: Reset U.S.-Syria policy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 28, 2024
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, three U.S. troops were killed in a drone attack launched by Iran-linked militants. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:

“The soldiers killed and the service members wounded in an outpost on the border of Jordan and Syria should not have been there. The outpost attacked seems to be attached to the U.S. mission in Syria, which is unauthorized, increasingly foolish, and an invitation to war with Iran.

“The militia that killed U.S. forces should be held accountable. But we should ask why U.S. forces in the area were left in range of repeated drone, missile and rocket attacks. What cause justified this predictable danger? The answer is none. The U.S. government put them in harm’s way in service of a murky and pointless mission.

“The Biden administration claims these forces are there to fight ISIS, but ISIS was thoroughly defeated years ago and remains a target of most local forces, including those attacking our troops. The outposts near the Jordanian-Syrian-Iraqi borders, including the one attacked, are in fact something else, an effort to police the border against Iran-linked forces. But we never hear any larger rationale for that aim which justifies risking American lives. Congress does not perform oversight and the executive branch does not tell us.

“Many U.S. leaders are already calling for war with Iran in response. We should hit the brakes on the march to another war. For one, it is not obvious that Iran was directly involved in this attack. Their links to militias in the area should not be equated with command and control and vary considerably among the different groups they loosely support. Second, launching a massive war in response to this awful attack might feel good, but it would not serve U.S. interests. Remember that the U.S. avoided a war after the 1983 barracks bombing in Beirut, which exposed the futility of their mission. There are better ways to hit back than starting another massive war in the Middle East and signing up for exponentially more death and destruction.”

DEFP report: Don’t fear vacuums: It’s safe to go home

DEFP explainer: Withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and Iraq

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 13, 2024
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Taiwan’s presidential election results show that the candidate representing the current ruling party has secured a victory. Defense Priorities Director of Asia Engagement Lyle Goldstein issued the following statement in response:

“Taiwan’s election result poses major challenges for regional and global security. China has repeatedly made it clear that it regards DPP rule as anathema, since DPP leaders insist that Taiwan has already achieved independence. Taiwan’s current leader, Tsai Ing-wen, has adopted a rather cautious approach, and hopefully her successor Lai will do the same.

“Taiwan should increase its self-reliance, by readjusting its defensive strategy in an asymmetric direction, while simultaneously boosting defense expenditures and strengthening its long-neglected reserve forces. It should reduce its tendency to rely on external aid. Unfortunately, efforts, largely driven by Washington, to increase the salience of Taiwan-U.S. ties, mean that U.S.-China ties remain dangerously close to the brink of military conflict. In recent years, such deleterious steps have included increased numbers of high-level U.S. officials visiting Taiwan, increased arms sales that don’t meet Taiwan’s defensive needs, and even the deployment of some U.S. troops to Taiwan, as well as a vastly increased pattern of military exercises in the proximate areas. Washington should help safeguard the peaceful status quo, maintaining strategic ambiguity, along with reassurances that it does not seek Taiwan’s indefinite separation from China.

“A U.S.-China war over Taiwan would mean catastrophic consequences, war between two nuclear superpowers. This can be avoided, but only with skillful diplomacy on all sides. Washington should reaffirm the original One China policy and abjure the increasingly fashionable idea in the U.S. of using Taiwan as ‘a cork in the bottle’ of China’s maritime expansion. Above all, the U.S. should seek deep and broad engagement with China and limit its preparations to fight a war to defend Taiwan. It’s time to stop sleepwalking into a war with another nuclear power over an island of no particular strategic importance.”

DEFP report: How militarily useful would Taiwan be to China?

DEFP explainer: Semiconductors are not a reason to defend Taiwan

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 11, 2024
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, the U.S. carried out strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen, a response to continued Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:

“The strikes on the Houthis will not work. That is, they are very unlikely to stop Houthi attacks on shipping. The strikes’ probable failure will invite escalation to more violent means that may also fail. That is why striking the Houthis is a bad idea. They will leave policymakers looking feckless and thus tempted to up the ante to more pointless war to solve a problem better left to diplomatic means.

“The virtue of these airstrikes is that it will make those who like using violence to protect the fictional ‘rules-based international order’ feel good. It allows those who insist we ‘must do something more’ on behalf of global shipping to have a ‘something.’ But beyond the psychological health of elites, there is no payoff.

“Tactically, the attacks on a dozen or so targets are far too limited to deprive the Houthis of their ability to use missiles and drones to target shipping off their coast. Strategically, the punishment inflicted on the Houthis is essentially a pinprick, which will do little to deter attacks that Houthi leaders obviously think has a large political payoff in enhancing their domestic legitimacy. In underlining their claim to be battling Israel and its U.S. backers in defense of Gaza, the airstrikes may actually be welcomed by Houthi leaders.

“The fact is that the Houthi attacks on shipping have not been particularly effective, nor are they a major economic issue. The consequence is a minor price increase, borne primarily by European and Chinese consumers. That suggests that the imperative to solve this problem need not be Washington’s. But if it is, the diplomatic route seems best. Houthi demands to stop its attacks are to allow more aid into Gaza. Granting that, even if in secret, is far cheaper than war. It is, at minimum, an option worth exploring.”

DEFP report: A plan for U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East

DEFP explainer: End U.S. support for war in Yemen

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 4, 2024
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, the U.S. carried out a strike which killed an Iran-linked militia commander in Iraq. Defense Priorities Public Policy Manager and Fellow Michael DiMino issued the following statement in response:

“The Biden Administration’s decision to kill a senior Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) commander in a Baghdad airstrike was ostensibly undertaken to protect U.S. troops from ongoing attacks by Shia militia groups, but it will achieve exactly the opposite.

“In response, the PMF will no doubt redouble their efforts to kill American troops, who have been attacked more than 100 times since October 7th. Our men and women serving in Iraq are now in severe danger for a mission that should have ended years ago, in a country that no longer wants them there.

“Like it or not, over the past decade the PMF has successfully captured the Iraqi government. Iraqi political leaders can only hold office with de facto PMF approval. Sadly, PMF leadership and Iraqi leadership are now essentially the same. So killing PMF leaders may be a tactical success in response to attacks on U.S. troops, but it makes little strategic sense. It will only drive a threadbare but more radical Iraqi government further into Iran’s arms, lead to a purge of the few remaining pro-U.S. holdouts in Iraqi politics, and put America on a trajectory towards open warfare with a PMF-dominated Iraq, which could then ignite a regional war.

“This airstrike also underscores the schizophrenic and unsustainable nature of U.S. foreign policy in Iraq. We provide billions in aid to the Iraqi government, much of which is funneled to Iran in the form of energy payments and then used to fund the PMF, while we conduct airstrikes on their senior paramilitary commanders for attacking our troops. It’s maddening.

“We must stop this vicious cycle. Instead, we should acknowledge that our troops in Iraq and Syria now functionally exist to be attacked by Shia militia groups. They have been on lockdown for months. They aren’t fighting terrorists or deterring Iran. They are sitting ducks. This is not a mission worthy of our service members. The Israel-Hamas War has proven these bases are a strategic liability that provide leverage to Iranian hardliners that want nothing more than to drag the U.S. into a proxy war. Moreover, U.S. national interests in Syria and Iraq are minimal to nonexistent. Any residual counterterrorism efforts there are better achieved with over-the-horizon capabilities and burden-sharing with local actors than a permanent presence.”

DEFP report: Withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and Iraq

DEFP explainer: Implications of foreign intervention for domestic institutions

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 2, 2024
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—According to reports, Israel carried out a drone strike in Beirut, Lebanon today which killed a Hamas official. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:

“Israel’s drone strike killing a top Hamas official, Saleh al-Arouri, along with several others, in Lebanon makes the escalation of its simmering conflict with Hezbollah more likely. An Israel war with Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, risks drawing the United States into another war in the Middle East. That is a prospect we should strive to avoid. Israel should defend itself without direct U.S. participation.

“The trouble in Lebanon comes as Israel’s war in Gaza escalates in several other places. The United States and the United Kingdom are reportedly threatening to attack the Houthis in Yemen if they do not stop drone and missile attacks on Red Sea shipping. The Houthis, who get arms and aid from Iran, say they are attacking Israeli shipping and will not stop until Israel allows more aid into Gaza. In Iraq and Syria, militias funded by Iran sporadically attack U.S. forces with mortars, rockets, and drones. Three U.S. soldiers were wounded in a drone attack in Iraq last week, and the U.S. response against Kataib Hezbollah reportedly killed several fighters. U.S. strikes against militias in both countries have failed to deter attacks on U.S. forces.

“Israel has a right to target Hamas members abroad, and the United States has a right to defend its forces in the region. Yet the flareups that threaten wider war for the United States confront us with the question of what U.S. interest is served by going to war for Israel, effectively on behalf of its war in Gaza. We might even ask if the prospect of U.S. support against Hezbollah encourages Israeli belligerence. Hence the United States should be clear that support for Israel will not include a shooting war on its behalf. We should cease missions in Iraq and Syria that put our troops pointlessly in harm’s way. And we should push a negotiated settlement with the Houthis. No U.S. friend or ally should expect us to fight wars that serve their interests and not ours.”

DEFP report: Withdraw U.S. forces from Syria and Iraq

DEFP explainer: Reset U.S.-Syria policy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
December 12, 2023
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is meeting with President Joe Biden at the White House. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:

“If the United States is pressing a resistant Ukraine to adopt a more defensive strategy, as reported, that is good news. The war in Ukraine has shown the advantages of defensive warfare and the narrow odds of Ukraine reclaiming all its territory by force. That is evidently unrealistic, and the United States is irresponsible in allowing Ukrainian leaders to linger in the hope of doing so. It is morally outrageous to keep encouraging Ukrainians, with words and aid, to die for objectives we deem unreachable.

“President Biden and his administration’s officials should also stop assuring Ukraine that U.S. aid will be forthcoming. Such a decision is up to Congress, and the Biden administration cannot guarantee they will still be in power in 2025. They should use that immutable uncertainty to tell Ukraine that they cannot count on continued aid, which is one more reason to shift to a defensive posture and advance negotiations with Russia. Even an armistice agreement could take years.

“Remember that U.S. interests and Ukrainian interests are not the same. Washington’s desire to keep Russia from menacing NATO Europe and to demonstrate the futility of conquest is essentially achieved, thanks to Ukraine’s sacrifice. However much we might root for Ukraine to take back all its land, U.S. security does not need that.”

DEFP report: Neutrality not NATO: Assessing security options for Ukraine

DEFP explainer: Reconfiguring NATO: The case for burden shifting

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
November 14, 2023
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Tomorrow, President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping are scheduled to meet in San Francisco. Defense Priorities Director of Asia Engagement Lyle Goldstein issued the following statement in response:

“The Biden-Xi meeting on the sidelines of the APEC summit is a most welcome development in a trend of thawing U.S.-China relations. The two leaders are unlikely to make major breakthroughs in this multilateral format, but reassurances from both on critical issues like Taiwan, the South China Sea, export controls, strategic stability, and even climate change could reduce tension. The dangers of war between the nuclear-armed superpowers mean leaders would be wise to arrest the deterioration of the relationship. Reviving military-to-military relations is far less than what’s required.

“On Taiwan, the U.S. can significantly lower major tensions across the strait by re-affirming Washington’s adherence to the One China policy and also stating clearly that the U.S. does not support Taiwan independence. Likewise, an approach consistent with realism and restraint in the South China Sea will emphasize the U.S. defensive alliance with the Philippines, while also encouraging Manila to do more for its own defense and making it clear the U.S. won’t be dragged to war with China over disputed rocks and reefs. Positive steps in other areas of the relationship will be welcome, of course, but such progress will depend to a large extent on mutual understanding in these two volatile conflict domains.

“To make genuine and lasting improvements in bilateral ties and steer the relationship away from militarized rivalry would, however, require not a brief meeting on the sidelines of a multilateral summit, but instead the sustained, high-level attention of an annual U.S.-China summit lasting at least two full days. A sincere diplomatic effort which an annual summit can foster should be the foundation of Washington’s responsible competition approach to Beijing.”

DEFP report: How militarily useful would Taiwan be to China?

DEFP explainer: Moving to an offshore balancing strategy for East Asia

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
November 9, 2023
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—In response to recent attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria, the U.S. announced on Wednesday that American F-15s conducted an airstrike on a weapons storage facility in Syria used by Iran-linked militants. Defense Priorities Fellow Daniel DePetris issued the following statement in response:

“The latest U.S. airstrike on an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-affiliated facility in eastern Syria comes at a time when U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria remain easy targets for Shia militia attacks. More than 40 such attacks have occurred since October 17.

“While the U.S. always reserves the right to defend itself wherever it operates, we should be clear: This strike won’t prevent further militia attacks on U.S. forces in the region. Incidents will continue and could even increase, as they have after other U.S. strikes over the past five years. The U.S. has shown time and time again that deterrence can’t be established with these groups, which—unlike states—don’t have to worry about defending territory or maintaining regime stability. The inherent asymmetry makes it impossible to deter these militias.

“If a U.S. ground presence in Iraq and Syria were absolutely necessary to achieve a core U.S. security interest, then perhaps these risks would be tolerable. But this is hardly the case. ISIS lost its territorial caliphate more than four years ago and is now relegated to a low-grade, rural insurgency that local actors can contain. The U.S. military presence is not only unnecessary, but also a dangerous tripwire for a wider war.

“A perpetual U.S. deployment remains high cost with no justifying security benefit. It is negligent to keep U.S. forces in Syria and even Iraq where they remain targets from groups that otherwise couldn’t reach Americans—they should immediately redeploy to better defended bases and eventually outside the region.”

DEFP explainer: Reset U.S.-Syria policy

DEFP brief: Understanding the Israel-Hamas war

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
November 8, 2023
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—The U.S. has conducted airstrikes against a facility used by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and its proxies in eastern Syria. Defense Priorities Public Policy Manager and Fellow Michael DiMino issued the following statement in response:

“Tonight’s U.S. airstrikes targeting IRGC-affiliated militias in eastern Syria will not stop continued attacks on American troops in exposed, remote, and difficult-to-defend compounds. The Biden Administration’s repeated attempts to “re-establish deterrence” have proven as much. Indeed, dozens of attacks on U.S. troops have occurred since previous airstrikes on October 26. Now is the time for the White House to acknowledge that our continued presence, absent a vital national security rationale, is no longer in America’s interest. As we have failed to provide our service members with a clear mission, the means to adequately defend themselves, and a plan for victory, all U.S. troops in Syria should be immediately redeployed to CENTCOM hubs where they will not remain needlessly subjected to attacks by Iran-backed groups that only serve to increase the risk of regional war in the Middle East.”

DEFP explainer: Reset U.S.-Syria policy

DEFP brief: Understanding the Israel-Hamas war

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
October 25, 2023
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria have come under fire from rocket and drone attacks in recent days. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:

“As the United States scrambles to better protect its forces in the Middle East for fear they could be targeted when Israel launches its ground offensive in Gaza, as seems imminent, a major question is left unanswered: why are U.S. forces there in the first place? Why should American service-members, especially the relatively small and vulnerable contingents in Syria and Iraq remain in harm’s way? 

“The Biden administration tells Americans our troops are in Syria and Iraq to fight ISIS. But ISIS ceased to be a coherent organization when its self-proclaimed territorial caliphate was destroyed more than four years ago. A variety of local actors are hunting its scattered remnants, who pose little threat to Americans. If the United States still needs to join the hunt, it can do so from bases further afield, outside the line of fire.

“A regional conflagration resulting from the war in Israel is a possibility U.S. foreign policy should labor to avoid. That starts with limiting paths to escalation. Rather than doubling down on threats and sending more troops, the United States should be sure that its forces are secure, not bait for actors willing to risk a wider war. The major risk is the small contingent of U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria. The offshore naval presence is more flexible and secure, and thus far less problematic.

“Like Hezbollah and even Hamas, the Shi'ite militias in Iraq and Syria are often described as Iranian proxies. The reality is these groups have less of a command relationship with Iran than a financial one. One cannot assume attacks by these actors come at Iran’s behest or that their desire for escalation mirrors Tehran’s.

“These regional dynamics—the war in Israel, dangerous instability in Syria and Iraq, Iran’s rivalry with Gulf States—are reasons to get out of the region, not to try to manage it better. Trying to run the Middle East and taking fire as a result is a job we should have quit long ago.”

DEFP explainer: Reset U.S.-Syria policy

DEFP report: Don’t fear vacuums: It’s safe to go home

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
October 19, 2023
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—This evening, President Joe Biden is scheduled to deliver a speech discussing U.S. support for Israel in their war with Hamas. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:

“Recent attacks on U.S. forces in the Middle East should underline the urgency of removing troops from the region. The attacks—including drones targeting U.S. bases in Syria and Iraq, plus a U.S. naval vessel’s interception of missiles off Yemen’s coast—came from militias tied in some way to Iran. These incidents may be the result of increased tensions resulting from the war between Hamas and Israel.

“The United States has a duty to defend its forces. That includes asking what they are accomplishing and protecting them from needless danger. The war on ISIS was won long ago, and their scattered remnants are hunted by all regional powers. U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq thus have little to achieve, but are vulnerable to attack and are sources of potential escalation with Syria’s government, Iran, Russia, and even Turkey. The presence of U.S. troops in Syria, in other words, runs a major risk for no clear benefit to Americans.

“The terrible case for leaving these troops in place only got worse with the war in Israel. These forces are vulnerable to attacks from Shi’ite militias and other hostiles potentially motivated to attack by trouble starting in Israel. Even if U.S. forces go unharmed, their vulnerability is a source of coercive leverage for these groups and their Iranian sponsors. Removing U.S. forces from Syria and Iraq is not capitulation to any U.S. adversary, but a way to deny them an advantage. U.S. forces in the area now run a great risk of being a pathway to a war with Iran, rather than being a means to deter one.”

DEFP explainer: Reset U.S.-Syria policy

DEFP report: Don’t fear vacuums: It’s safe to go home