Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • Israel-Iran
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • NATO
    • China
    • Syria
  • Research
    • Briefs
    • Explainers
    • Reports
  • Programs
    • Grand Strategy Program
    • Military Analysis Program
    • Asia Program
    • Middle East Program
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Media
  • About
    • Mission & Vision
    • People
    • Jobs
    • Contact
  • Donate
Select Page
Home / Iran / Striking Iran shouldn’t be on the table
Iran, Middle East

January 29, 2024

Striking Iran shouldn’t be on the table

By Daniel DePetris

If you didn’t know any better, you might think the United States was on the precipice of a war with Iran.

That’s what some commentators and lawmakers are certainly hoping for after this weekend, when a drone targeted a small U.S. military outpost just inside northeastern Jordan. Three U.S. troops were killed and more than 30 additional soldiers were injured. The drone apparently exploded near the facility’s sleeping quarters, which explains the high casualty rate. This is the first time a militia attack against a U.S. military location in the Middle East has resulted in American fatalities since Tehran’s proxies accelerated their assaults in mid-October. “We know these groups are supported by Iran—make no mistake about that,” White House national security spokesperson John Kirby told reporters today before claiming that the attacks will require a response.

That a military response is in the offing isn’t surprising. If President Joe Biden authorized retaliatory airstrikes after U.S. troops were wounded in drone and militia attacks, it’s guaranteed that he would authorize them after Americans were killed. The decision has been made.

The scope of it, however, is extremely important. Calls for going above and beyond proportional retaliation, to targets inside Iran itself, will simply create more problems and compel the Iranians to respond directly. The U.S., then, would be juggling multiple adversaries simultaneously at a time when the White House apparently wants to prevent the cycle of violence from getting even worse. Biden himself would have to justify to the American public why he thought it was necessary to widen the conflict, and in effect, plunge the U.S. into a war that Congress hasn’t debated, let alone authorized.

Read at Newsweek

Author

Photo of Daniel DePetris

Daniel
DePetris

Fellow

Defense Priorities

More on Middle East

op-edIsrael‑Iran, Iran, Israel, Middle East

What lessons are foreign leaders taking from Donald Trump’s Iran bombing?

By Daniel DePetris

July 1, 2025

op-edGrand strategy, China, Iran, North Korea, Russia

There is no ‘axis of autocracy’

By Daniel DePetris

July 1, 2025

op-edIsrael‑Iran, Basing and force posture, Middle East

The Iran strike shows we don’t need bases in the Middle East

By Jennifer Kavanagh and Dan Caldwell

June 28, 2025

op-edGrand strategy, Americas, China, Iran, Middle East, Russia

How not to do multipolarity

By Anthony Constantini

June 28, 2025

op-edIsrael‑Iran, Iran, Israel, Middle East

The real obstacle to peace with Iran

By Rosemary Kelanic and Jennifer Kavanagh

June 25, 2025

In the mediaIsrael‑Iran, Middle East

Is Iran really a threat to the United States? A debate

Featuring Rosemary Kelanic

June 25, 2025

Events on Iran

See All Events
virtualMiddle East, Basing and force posture, Diplomacy, Houthis, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Israel‑Hamas, Military analysis, Syria

Past Virtual Event: Trump in the Middle East: Impacts, implications, and alternatives

May 16, 2025
virtualHouthis, Iran, Israel‑Hamas, Middle East, Yemen

Past Virtual Event: Houthi conundrum: defend, degrade, or defer

March 28, 2024
virtualMiddle East, Iran, Israel‑Hamas, Israel‑Iran, Syria, Yemen

Past Virtual Event: Keeping the U.S. out of war in the Middle East

January 16, 2024

Receive expert foreign policy analysis

Join the hub of realism and restraint

Expert updates and analysis to enhance your understanding of vital U.S. national security issues

Defense Priority Mono Logo

Our mission is to inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military—used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests—and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security.

  • About
  • For Media
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
© 2025 Defense Priorities All Right Reserved