Amid US strikes in Syria, examining Iran, its proxies and the question of control

BEIRUT — The US military announced late Thursday it conducted “self-defense strikes” on Iran-linked sites in Syria, only days after a senior American defense official said that the US will hold Iran and its proxies “accountable”  for targeting US bases and interests in the region.

In a statement, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said that “these precision, self-defense strikes are a response to a series of ongoing and mostly unsuccessful attacks against U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria by Iranian-backed militia groups that began on October 17.”

Earlier this month, purported Iran-back militias in Iraq that fall under the banner of “Islamic Resistance,” claimed responsibility for attacks on US military bases at al-Tanf and Malikiyah in Syria and air base Ain Al Asad in Iraq, that used loitering munitions. Altogether, the US said there have been at least 13 attacks on US interests in Iraq and Syria in recent days. One American contractor died of a cardiac event during one attack, but otherwise none have been fatal.

Austin’s statement appeared to signal two competing points: the US counter-strikes were not designed to escalate conflict in the Middle East, but the US held Iran responsible for violence by other groups in the region that the US says are supported and funded by Tehran.

“The United States does not seek conflict and has no intention nor desire to engage in further hostilities, but these Iranian-backed attacks against U.S. forces are unacceptable and must stop,” Austin said. “Iran wants to hide its hand and deny its role in these attacks against our forces. We will not let them. If attacks by Iran’s proxies against U.S. forces continue, we will not hesitate to take further necessary measures to protect our people.”

A US official previously said the US sees “Iranian fingerprints” all over the increased activity.

But while “Iranian fingerprints” may be all over the funding and support of armed groups in the region, experts told Breaking Defense that Tehran has varying degrees of control over the actual actions they take, from Hamas in Gaza, to Hezbollah in Lebanon, to the Houthis in Yemen, to different militias in Iraq and Syria.

“The control varies, with some groups closely tied to Iran and other less so. However, even for those less closely tied, Iran can influence them to do attacks. In most cases, they won’t go against their own interests, but Iran’s arms and [money] go a long way in getting their support,” Daniel Byman, senior fellow at the DC-based think tank CSIS, told Breaking Defense.

In the days after Hamas’ deadly Oct. 7 assault, US officials said that initial intelligence did not indicate a direct role by the Iranian government in that attack that claimed 1,400 Israeli lives. But analyst Ryan Bohl said that doesn’t mean Iran has not influenced other incidents since.

“In regards to whether or not Iran is directly controlling or ordering these attacks, the answer is that at least some of them are probably getting direction from the [the Iranian military group] Quds Force, especially ones based in Iraq and Syria where Quds is deeply entrenched,” said Bohl, Senior Middle East and North Africa Analyst at the RANE Network.

He added that Houthis in Yemen are more of an independent ally of Iran, but nevertheless would probably seek Iran’s approval before carrying out attacks, like the long-range missile that apparently targeted Israel but were shot down by the American Navy.

As for Hezbollah in Lebanon, Bohl said that group “is a reliable proxy of Iran, but both Iran and Hezbollah are keenly aware of its delicate position inside Lebanon’s political system and try to take steps that don’t upend that.”

Hezbollah and Israel have skirmished with increasing frequency and intensity on Israel’s northern border since Oct. 7, but the Lebanese armed group does not appear to have made a decision to fully join in the fight against Israel. All eyes, however, are on Hezbollah’s reaction to an expected Israeli ground invasion of Gaza.

Theodore Karasik, senior advisor at Gulf State Analytics, said that regardless of direct orders, the pinprick attacks by Iran-backed groups help Tehran with its strategy in the Middle East and Africa by highlighting Western and Israeli weaknesses. Inspiring the groups to attack is enough to boost “Tehran’s narrative,” he said.

“Militia activity is seen as something to be cheered on in almost ‘a revolutionary manner,’ which is a major problem from a threat perspective,” he said. There is “no doubt Iran sees all this activity in its best interest as it damages Washington, pushing America into a retreat and maybe defeat of the Great Satan. Iran strategy is patient and in sync with their proxy clients over a time horizon.”

Jon Alterman, head of the Middle East Program at CSIS, agreed.

“Iran has steadily built up proxy forces throughout the Middle East for decades,” Alterman told Breaking Defense. “The point is to remind the United States and its partners and allies that its preferences cannot be ignored, while simultaneously giving Iran some plausible deniability.”

But like Hezbollah, Tehran so far does not appear eager to wade into a larger conflict in the Middle East against Israel, one that could draw in the United States. That’s where Iran’s proxies could be playing a dangerous game, Bohl said.

“Harassment and skirmishes are a valuable tactic to achieve the goal of political legitimacy at home and abroad and deterrence against the US and Israel. However, they are also high risk. There is a very real chance that enough skirmishes or harassing actions result in significant casualties for the United States or Israel and results in significant retaliatory measures that puts us on the escalation ladder towards regional war,” he said.

Meanwhile the US presence in the region has not diminished due to these attacks. To the contrary, carrier groups were called to Eastern Mediterranean for deterrence purposes. And just Thursday the US Missile Defense Agency publicized a successful test of its ship-based missile defense systems that was apparently able to knock out several incoming threats at once.

The exercise surely was planned months in advance, but it comes at an opportune moment perhaps as a show of force for any Iran-backed proxies considering making a move against the maritime force.