U.S. blames Iran-backed militia for deadly attack, leaving Middle East on edge

Amna Nawaz:

Today, the United States blamed an umbrella group of Iranian-backed proxies for the weekend attack that killed three U.S. soldiers.

From Israel to Iran, the Middle East is on edge, waiting to see how the U.S. responds.

Nick Schifrin reports.

Nick Schifrin:

At an event commemorating the Gaza war today, Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps commander said he didn't want another war, but wasn't afraid of one.

MAJ. GEN. HOSSEIN SALAMI, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (through interpreter):

You know that we do not leave any threats unanswered. While we are not looking for war, we do not run away from it.

Nick Schifrin:

Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps has long supported what Iran calls an axis of resistance to conduct forward defense against its enemies.

In Iraq, that includes Kataib Hezbollah, a member of the umbrella group Islamic Resistance in Iraq, which the U.S. today blamed for the attack on the Tower 22 base in Jordan last weekend that killed three U.S. reserve soldiers. But, yesterday, Kataib Hezbollah claimed in a statement that Iran — quote — "does not know how it fights" and, in fact, opposes some of the group's attacks.

And Kataib Hezbollah pledged to — quote — "suspend military action" against the U.S. to — quote — "avoid putting the Iraqi government in an embarrassing position."

John Kirby, NSC Coordinator For Strategic Communications:

You can't take what a group like Kataib Hezbollah says at face value.

Nick Schifrin:

National Security Council spokesman John Kirby today dismissed the group's self-declared cease-fire and said the U.S. would have multiple responses.

John Kirby:

What we're anticipating here, which won't just be a one-off, as I said, the first thing you see will not be the last thing.

Nick Schifrin:

Iran also supports the Houthis in Yemen, which have launched more than three dozen attacks on international shipping and openly trains for attacks on Israeli and U.S. forces. It claims to be fighting for Gazans, but many of the ships it has attacked have no connection to Israel.

Today, the U.S. launched its 10th airstrike on a Houthi target in Yemen, and the Houthi spokesman said the group's attacks would continue.

Brig. Gen. Yahya Sarea, Houthi Military Spokesman (through interpreter):

The Yemeni armed forces confirm they are taking all military procedures within the right to defend dear Yemen and in solidarity with the Palestinian people.

Nick Schifrin:

For more on all this, we get two perspectives.

Vali Nasr was an adviser at the State Department during the Obama administration and is now a professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. Reuel Marc Gerecht was a CIA operations officer in the Middle East in the '80s and 90s. He is now a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Thanks very much. Welcome, both of you, back to the "NewsHour."

Reuel Marc Gerecht, let me start here with you.

How do you believe the United States should respond to the killing of the three U.S. soldiers in Jordan last weekend?

Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies: I think the United States should take this directly to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps inside Iran or along the coast.

We should have an updated version of Operation Praying Mantis in 1988, where the U.S. Navy quickly destroyed the Islamic Republic's Navy, mutatis mutandis, something like that. I think anything short of that is likely to be unsuccessful, and you're going to see Iran continue its proxy war strategy against us.

Nick Schifrin:

Vali Nasr, how do you think the U.S. should respond to this attack that killed three U.S. soldiers in Jordan?

Vali Nasr, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University: I mean, the United States has stated that it does not want to why the war. If it does not want a wider war, attacking Iran directly is not the way to go.

First of all, even though Kataib Hezbollah is backed by Iran, there's not evidence that Iran ordered the attack that killed the three Americans. That's number one. Secondly, a direct attack on Iran is going to lead to a retaliation. We saw this when the United States killed an Iranian general, Soleimani, during the Trump administration. Iran reacted with a barrage of missiles that hit American targets inside Iraq.

And had an American been killed then, then we would have been at war. So it really goes down to what the United States wants to achieve from this attack. Does it want to retaliate? Does it want to deter or does it want to expand the war?

Nick Schifrin:

Reuel Marc Gerecht, take on those two points. That would escalate — what you suggested would escalate this war. And there is no evidence that Iran actually ordered this attack.

Reuel Marc Gerecht:

Well, one, I think you absolutely want to escalate.

I mean, historically, the Islamic Republic has feared escalation. They have under no circumstances want to get in a duel with the United States. They know they will lose. I would say Donald Trump's serious mistake was, after the — droning Qasem Soleimani — and by the way, the leader of the Kataib Hezbollah at that time, Muhandis, was with Soleimani and also died.

It's a creature of the Islamic Republic. He didn't escalate. He should have responded. So the administration has to make up its mind whether it wants to be effective or it wants to retrench. If they do not take this directly to the Islamic Republic, the odds of this being successful, I think, are very poor.

Nick Schifrin:

Vali Nasr, what about that? If the U.S. wants to actually stop the attacks, Reuel Marc Gerecht's point is that the strikes need to be inside Iran itself.

Vali Nasr:

No, I mean, if the United States really wants the current state of conflict to end, it has to end the Gaza war.

The only time that the — all of these attacks ended was when there was an eight-day cease-fire that was brokered at that time by the United States. The underlying cause of the current escalation is the war. And the idea that, if you hit Iranians hard or you hit Hezbollah hard, somehow, they will back away and let basically the current war in Gaza go as planned could be a massive miscalculation.

I mean, these countries have their own interest in this war, both opportunities and fears. And, yes, they don't want a larger war, but they're not going to step back just because the United States is hitting them in order for the Gaza war to be conducted as is desired by Israel.

And if we miscalculate, thinking that the Iranians will slink into their hole and don't respond, we may be surprised. I don't think the evidence shows that, in the past, that, when we have hit them hard, they have backed away. That is a convenient reading to say that.

As I said, when we killed General Soleimani, it did not actually end up with a de-escalation immediately. Iranians hit back. It was President Trump at that point who decided not to retaliate against a very provocative retaliation by Iran.

Nick Schifrin:

Reuel Marc Gerecht, let me ask about Iraq.

The U.S. is in the middle of conversations with the Iraqi government that publicly says it wants the U.S. to leave the country, although the prime minister specifically does not put a timetable on that. Should that discussion about the future of U.S. troops in Iraq play into U.S. decision-making today about how to respond to this attack last weekend?

Reuel Marc Gerecht:

Well, I don't think you can ever allow the United States to be held hostage by its bases abroad and its forces abroad.

And there's no question about it. The United States has bases in Iraq and elsewhere that are not properly armed with anti-missile batteries. And it's an issue. The Israelis also have a problem in that, if the Iranians were to unleash or encourage Hezbollah to let loose its missiles, the Israeli air force, I think, fairly quickly would destroy those forces, but it could pincushion Tel Aviv for a while.

So it's a real issue. But I think the overall problem is, you can't let them hold you, essentially extort you, can't let them blackmail you. And I would have to disagree with Vali. I mean, the Iranians have been gaming us and using a proxy war strategy long before the Gaza war broke out. It's close to a miracle that Americans hadn't died earlier from the numerous attacks that Iranian allied militias, proxies have launched against us.

Nick Schifrin:

Vali Nasr, do you think that the U.S. should be thinking about the impact of its presence in Iraq when it considers how to respond to this weekend attack?

Vali Nasr:

Yes, because the Kataib Hezbollah are not Iranians. They're Iraqis. That organization and its fellow militias are a political reality in Iraq.

And they have significant power in the country among the population, as well as in the halls of power with the government. And taking them on directly basically can undermine the central Iraqi government and destabilize Iraq. In other words, United States and Iran can go to war with Iraq — in Iraq with one another.

But they have to be also mindful that the casualty here would be Iraq. And the United States is trying to maintain troops and forces in order partly to protect the Iraqi government that it has set up. And it's not that straightforward that, if you went after the militias, somehow, Iraq will come out of this unscathed as well.

Nick Schifrin:

Reuel Marc Gerecht, I only have about 45 seconds, so very quickly, you heard John Kirby there largely dismiss the statement by Kataib Hezbollah. Do you also dismiss it?

Reuel Marc Gerecht:

Yes.

I mean, as I said earlier, I think they are a creature of the Islamic Republic. Yes, they are Iraqis, but they have been in league with Iran. The Revolutionary Guard Corps has given them a lot of money and training for a cause. And that is, essentially, they have the same goal, to kick the United States out of Iraq, to humble the United States in the Middle East, to destroy Israel.

Nick Schifrin:

And, Vali Nasr, quickly to you, same question.

Should the U.S. take seriously what Kataib Hezbollah said yesterday, which was essentially unilateral cease-fire?

Vali Nasr:

Well, we shall see if they follow through. I mean, actions speak louder than words.

But I would say that perhaps they have realized that they have come to the brink of something dangerous and may back away. That does not end the conflict.

Nick Schifrin:

Yes.

Vali Nasr:

This will continue while this war is going on in Gaza.

Nick Schifrin:

Vali Nasr, Reuel Marc Gerecht, thank you very much to you both.

Reuel Marc Gerecht:

My pleasure.

Vali Nasr:

Thank you.