On November 14, Pentagon Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh stated that “deterrence in the Middle East is working.”
But how does one know?
It’s a fair question, as less than a month after Singh’s statement, the Iran-backed Houthis attacked several commercial ships in the Red Sea and attempted another attack on US forces by another Iranian proxy, the militia in Iraq.
Deterrence is traditionally understood as demonstrating a capability and communicating the intent to use it.
Although the Iranian regime and its proxies clearly continue to launch attacks on American forces and assets — and on Israel — one could argue that major escalation has, so far, been largely avoided since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7. Escalation, in this case, was strategically deterred.
Part of this is no doubt due to the impressive capabilities deployed by the United States in the region, which include two aircraft carrier strike groups, a group of fighter aircraft, 300 troops, an Ohio-class submarine, as well as fixed munitions and other support for the armed forces. Israel – all in just over a month.
It used force only six times – on October 26, November 8, November 12, November 21, November 22 and December 3. All were described as “self-defense” strikes, and the last two strikes were described for each. He killed a number of fighters linked to Iran. He described each action as a response to a series of attacks on American forces. While National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan acknowledged that Iran was the “ultimately responsible party” for the Houthi attack on commercial ships on December 3, his response was to consult with regional allies about forming a task force to protect commercial ships — rhetoric that cannot do the trick. . Put the opponent on notice.
It is clear that the Iranian regime has calculated that any major regional escalation at the present time will not serve its interests. But their continued attacks on American targets do not constitute evidence of the persuasiveness of the United States’ rhetoric and actions. There were at least 76 attacks on American forces during the past two months, resulting in the injury of at least 59 American soldiers. The Iran-backed Houthis also shot down an American drone.
Can more be done to not only deter escalation, but also stop these ongoing attacks? The administration’s rhetoric may be crucial here.
President Joe Biden’s administration has variously explained its approach as maintaining solidarity with Israel, preventing the conflict from spreading, acting in self-defense and, of course, achieving deterrence. Explicit statements regarding deterring Iran and its proxies have not yet been included in those explanations.
In his first speech since the October 7 attack, delivered on October 10, Biden explained the rationale for force posture changes in the region, stating that it was to “enhance deterrence.” Against him? Biden further explained: “Let me say again – to any country, to any organization, to any person who thinks about taking advantage of this situation, I have one word: Don’t do it.”
While it seems clear that the country in question is Iran and that the organizations referred to are its agents, the words “any” and “anyone” could apply to Russia, China, ISIS, or any other country. Is the United States prepared to use force against them, and if so, what do these entities “benefiting from this situation” look like?
The November 8 strike on Iranian facilities was intended to send a message that “the United States will defend itself, its personnel, and its interests.”
The language used by the Biden administration during the second strike, which came on October 26, included the following disclaimer: “These narrowly designed self-defense strikes were intended solely to protect and defend US personnel in Iraq and Syria. It is separate and distinct from the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, and does not constitute a shift in our approach to the conflict between Israel and Hamas.
The statement continued that in this “separate and distinct” conflict, the administration urged “all governmental and non-governmental entities not to take actions that would escalate into a broader regional conflict.”
Iran was not mentioned in official statements regarding the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group, which deployed on October 8, or the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier strike group, which deployed the following week. Both deployments were interpreted as actions in support of Israel, with the latter only mentioned as a deployment “to deter any state or non-state actor seeking to escalate this war.”
After focusing on demonstrating capability and using force “in self-defense,” the administration must make clear that deterrence aims not only to prevent escalation, but also to stop attacks on American personnel.
This requires two steps. First, directly identifying the Iranian regime as the catalyst for the events of October 7 and the regional escalation since then – from Hezbollah attacks against Israel to attacks on US forces. America and Israel are engaged in a single regional conflict that extends far beyond Hamas in Gaza.
Next, the administration must define for the Iranian regime the scenario that would constitute a crossing of the threshold – and call for a major US response – through its actions or the actions of its agents.
While deterrence may be effective in preventing escalation, the situation can change in an instant, as October 7 demonstrated. Such an event can challenge management and reveal poor judgment. Indeed, ambiguity often leads to tragic miscalculation.
The clarity of the speech can at least serve as a warning to the opponent, who, if nothing else, listens carefully.
Retired Army Lt. Gen. Stephen Bloom, former deputy commander of U.S. Northern Command and former chief of the National Guard Bureau, served for 42 years.
Jacob Olidort is the research director at the Gemender Center for Defense and Strategy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, or JINSA.
Do you have an opinion?
This article is an editorial, and therefore the opinions expressed are those of the author.
If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, or submit your own editorial, please email opinions@militarytimes.com For military times or our service locations. Please email opinion@defensenews.com to reach Defense News, C4ISRNet or Federal Times. Want more views like this sent straight to you? Sign up for our newsletter for comments and opinions once a week.
Effective communication is crucial in conveying intentions and establishing deterrence in all aspects of life. Language serves as a powerful tool for conveying one’s beliefs, intentions, and objectives, and the ability to effectively communicate these can be a significant deterrent to potential adversaries. Whether in personal relationships, business negotiations, or international diplomacy, the importance of language for deterrence cannot be overstated. This essay will delve into the role of language in communicating intentions and the ways in which it can be utilized to establish deterrence in various contexts.