Why is Iran attacking US bases in Syria and Iraq? Before we can answer that, we should ask a few questions about why Iran organized the October 7th terrorist attacks.
The Hamas attacks made geopolitical sense on the surface: Iran used Hamas to delay the solidification of an anti-Iranian coalition consisting of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other US-backed partners. However, this end could have been achieved with a much more limited terrorist attack. By committing what is the second worst terrorist attack in history after 9-11, Iran was forcing Israel to wipe out its proxy: Why is Iran sacrificing a chess piece that it could so easily have kept on the chessboard? The answer is, Iran must be planning a large scale attack on Israel, and they want to force Israel to deploy as much of their military capacity as possible before deploying their other proxies and then, lastly, entering the fight themselves.
This might seem like an extreme conclusion, but this conclusion makes sense of the escalating attacks on US forces in Syria. The US, of course, had a variety of reasons for deploying forces to Syria: Countering ISIL, supporting anti-Hassad forces, etc. However, one of the less appreciated reasons for stationing troops there is to prevent Iran and Russia from taking control of the Al Tanf, an area in southeast Syria strategically located along the Damascus-Baghdad highway at the intersection of the country’s borders with Jordan and Iraq, which could serve as a potential landbridge for Iran to move personnel and equipment through the country to threaten Israel from the Golan Heights or elsewhere. The most probable strategic goal of attacking US forces in Syria is to force a withdrawal so that Iran can seize this key highway.
But it is unlikely that Iran wants to seize this highway to force the US to respect Syria’s territorial integrity: It is much more likely that Iran wants access to the Golan Heights.
Both the attack on the US army base at Al Tanf and the overpowered, excessive, and brutal attack by Hamas on Israel only make sense if Iran is planning to attack Israel.
Of course, Iran isn’t going to force a US withdrawal—Biden cannot afford a second humiliation after Afghanistan and, more importantly, Syria is of far more geopolitical importance than Afghanistan is: After all, Syria is important to Russia and China, which makes it important to the US.
That said, Iran is hoping that because Russian forces are operating in the area. After all, Al Tanf is the location of the famous “deconfliction zone” between the US and Russia, that the US will prefer a withdrawal to a risk of escalation with Russia. However, the Biden administration is likely to calculate that the military action Iran would take after gaining control of this key piece of land risks escalation more than does defending the outpost.
Many might think that Iran cannot possibly be this reckless, but let’s recall that the much saner Saddam Hussein was this reckless and that Biden has been involved in a great deal of diplomatic activity to prevent Iran from “broadening the conflict.” This only makes sense if Iran, in fact, plans to broaden the conflict.
If Iran is not planning to enter the fray with Israel, then the only other explanation is that Russia, or China, has coaxed Iran into all this in order to strengthen its own position in Syria. However, Iran could have achieved this without quite as large an attack on Israel—one that would have forced reprisals but ultimately left its Hamas proxy intact. If Iran is working on Russia or China’s behalf, Russia or China must have offered them something very juicy in exchange.
That Hezbollah and the Houthi militias will increase their attacks on Israel, the Houthis limiting themselves to cruise missiles, is a near certainty. But it is also quite possible that Iran is planning to enter the fray directly: Likely with Russian assistance.
While the above is speculative, what is certain is that the news reporting on the situation in the Middle East is vastly, vastly oversimplifying things.