TEHRAN- In the wake of the recent attack on U.S. troops in Jordan, the White House finds itself at a crossroads, grappling with a range of unrealistic options in its quest to restore lost prestige.

Within Western think tanks, among U.S. politicians, and within parliamentary circles, there persists a resolute call for a direct assault on Iran's interests by Washington. This suggestion has not only sparked heated debates but has also prompted publications such as Politico and the Wall Street Journal to propose a bold strategy — sinking Iranian vessels in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea.

Drawing historical parallels, certain think tanks have invoked the specter of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan's move against the Iranian Navy, claiming that Reagan's action was a necessary measure to safeguard U.S. interests in the region. This historical reference, however, demands careful scrutiny in the contemporary geopolitical landscape.

The path forward requires a comprehensive approach that considers both the immediate implications and the long-term consequences of any move. Rather than succumbing to unmeasured reactions, the Biden administration must prioritize diplomacy, seeking avenues to defuse tensions.

In the realm of international relations, rash decisions can have far-reaching ramifications. A measured response, grounded in a thorough understanding of the intricacies at play, is crucial in fostering stability in the volatile West Asia region.

As the world watches, the White House faces a delicate balancing act — one that demands prudence, strategic thinking, and a commitment to diplomacy. In reassessing its options, the Biden administration must consider the complexities of the current geopolitical landscape effectively.

As we distill the myriad suggestions put forth in recent discourse, it becomes evident that these recommendations are, at best, misaligned with U.S. interests and the overarching West Asia policy by President Biden.

One of the options presented to Biden is the assassination of Iranian commanders outside Iran. According to some unconfirmed news, General Shahlaei is one of the people on this assassination list. It should be noted that on January 3, 2020, at the same time as General Soleimani was assassinated in Iraq, General Shahlaei was also supposed to be assassinated in Yemen, but the operation was not successful, and in this terrorist attack, an Iranian national named Mustafa Mirzaei was martyred. Shahlaei's name is mentioned while this commander left Yemen a long time ago.

Attacking the Iranian vessels Behshad and Alborz is one of the other options presented to Biden. The Alborz frigate recently entered the Red Sea after passing through Bab al-Mandab.

The latest information received by the Tehran Times indicates that the Americans currently have not provided the conditions for an open and direct operation inside Iran, and they assess the risk of such an action as high. Of course, this does not mean that they do not have a plan in this regard. The Americans have plans for a covert operation inside Iran, one that causes a damage, but the attacker does not accept responsibility and denies his involvement in it.

American media has reported that the U.S. response would take a week and could include cyber attacks. 

Delving into the realm of potential U.S. military actions against Iran’s interests, it is crucial to acknowledge the far-reaching consequences that may unfold across the political, military, and economic spectrums for the White House. 

However, it is imperative to emphasize that any military intervention must be rooted in a legitimate objective; otherwise, it risks being perceived as a blatant violation of international laws.

The recent drone attack on U.S. troops in Jordan, occurred on a Sunday, was claimed by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq. Notably, Tehran has vehemently asserted the autonomy of the resistance groups, saying that the resistance front carries out its own directives not Tehran’s. 

In the absence of concrete evidence implicating Tehran, any contemplated assault on Iran's interests by Washington faces a critical hurdle in establishing legitimacy. The cornerstone of international relations rests on credible information and just cause, both of which are essential in justifying any military action.

To retain its role, Washington must adhere to the principles of transparency and due diligence. Failure to ascertain Tehran's involvement in the alleged attack renders any potential targeting of Iran's interests ethically and legally precarious.

The intricacies of international law underscore the necessity for a thorough and impartial investigation before Washington can legitimately consider Iran as a target.

Beyond the geopolitical complexities at play, it is paramount to consider the legal implications associated with any military action. An intervention lacking a legitimate objective risks not only exacerbating tensions in the region but also undermining the credibility of the United States on the international stage.

As the world watches, the decisions made in response to this crisis will not only shape the region's future but also define the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy in West Asia for years to come.

Also, the decision to pursue military action against Iran raises pressing questions about the legitimacy and consequences of such a move.

Internally, President Biden, a Democratic figure, is already navigating the intricacies of a closely contested election campaign with the Republicans. Opting for a military strike on Iran could unfold as a new chapter in a series of questionable actions, adding to the perception of Washington's unfinished business and incompetence. Such a move could lead to unprecedented losses for the Democrats in the upcoming presidential elections, as voters may question the wisdom and efficacy of such a decision.

On the foreign policy front, Washington's recent support for Tel Aviv's actions in the Gaza Strip has already drawn international criticism. The U.S.'s repeated vetoes of UN Security Council draft motions on a ceasefire in the besieged enclave in October and December 2023 have sparked widespread condemnation from politicians and nations globally. This prior criticism sets the stage for heightened scrutiny and skepticism regarding any further military endeavors by Biden's administration.

Beyond the political fallout, the U.S. faces potential military repercussions in West Asia. A surge in drone and missile attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria over the past four months reveals a region increasingly intolerant of perceived U.S. miscalculations and interventions. The resistance axis, explicitly linking U.S. military consequences to its support for Israeli actions in Gaza, have issued stern warnings that the severity of responses will escalate with continued U.S. backing of Israel.

Economically, a U.S. attack on Iran is further complicated by the existing challenges in the global economic landscape. Washington is already engaged in a tense economic competition with Beijing, while emerging powers and economic groups such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) seek to reshape the world economy. The dollar, already at risk of devaluation, faces additional vulnerability in the event of heightened military actions that could strain economic ties and alliances.

As Washington navigates this intricate web of challenges, the imperative lies in a thorough evaluation of evidence, a strategic recalibration of foreign policy, and a nuanced approach that carefully considers the multifaceted repercussions of any potential military engagement with Iran.

Amid an intricate global landscape, Washington finds itself grappling with the Moscow-Kyiv war, channeling substantial financial resources to support Ukraine. As the White House juggles multiple fronts, a delicate balance emerges, emphasizing the imperative to chart a course aligned with America's overarching interests. 

Amidst these geopolitical complexities, the proposed options for Biden's administration appear increasingly divorced from the prevailing realities, encompassing economic, military, and political dimensions, as well as the intricacies of Biden's appeasement policy in West Asia.

Crucially, Iran's formidable military capabilities and deterrence power emerge as significant obstacles deterring Biden from contemplating a direct attack on Tehran. The recognition of Iran's strength adds a layer of caution to any potential military maneuvers, forcing the White House to carefully reconsider the feasibility and prudence of such actions.

As Washington treads through this complex terrain, a strategic recalibration is essential. The administration must seek a nuanced understanding of the multifaceted challenges at play, aligning its actions with the evolving realities on the ground. In doing so, the White House can chart a path forward that not only addresses immediate concerns but also steers clear of actions that may inadvertently escalate tensions and jeopardize America's strategic interests.

In a surprising turn of events, President Biden may opt for a calibrated and retaliatory response to the resistance axis, akin to the allegedly measured attack executed in Sanna recently. This potential move, carefully designed to minimize casualties, aims to assert Biden's administration's strength while reclaiming lost authority for the U.S. government.

The proposed strategy reflects a calculated approach, strategically tailored to maintain the reputation of Biden's administration. The intention is not to unleash a devastating assault but rather to deliver a proportional response, striking a delicate balance between showcasing strength and avoiding a significant loss of life. This nuanced tactic serves a dual purpose— upholding Biden's administration's prestige and reestablishing the U.S. government's authority.

Examining historical precedents sheds light on the potential political motivations behind such a move. On the brink of an election, the ruling party often employs tactics to sway public sentiment, fostering trust and support. In this context, Biden may strategically leave the West Asian conflict unresolved, presenting it as a testament to his administration's ongoing commitment to tackling complex issues.

By keeping the conflict in West Asia lingering, Biden aims to position himself as a U.S. president who understands the intricacies of safeguarding U.S. interests while adeptly navigating complex geopolitical landscapes. The unfinished conflict serves as a rallying point, allowing Biden to appeal to the American nation's trust, portraying his administration as one capable of bringing the ongoing tensions to a strategic and satisfactory conclusion.

By Alireza Akbari