Follow us on social

Attacks on US troops in Middle East resume

Attacks on US troops in Middle East resume

Is anyone paying attention to this tinderbox, with our servicemen and women right in the middle?

Analysis | Middle East

UPDATE 7/31 6:50 AM: The U.S. conducted an airstrike south of Baghdad late Tuesday. U.S. officials told ABC news that it was a defensive strike to thwart an attempted militant attack on a U.S. base in Babil Province.

"U.S. forces in Iraq conducted a defensive airstrike in the Musayib in Babil Province, targeting combatants attempting to launch one-way attack uncrewed aerial systems (OWAUAS)," an official told reporters.

"Based on recent attacks in Iraq and Syria, U.S. Central Command assessed that the OWAUAS posed a threat to U.S. and Coalition Forces," the official said.




After six months of calm, Iran-aligned militias are again targeting U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria.

Following the Gaza war’s eruption, these militias sharply increased their attacks, resulting in the deaths of three U.S. soldiers on January 28 by a Kataib Hezbollah drone at Tower 22 in Jordan, near the Syrian border. In response, the Biden administration launched strikes against the militias, killing a senior Kataib Hezbollah commander on February 7, but avoiding commanders of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, or IRGC. This led to a temporary lull in violence, but attacks have recently resumed.

Last Thursday and Friday, rockets were launched by Iran-aligned militias at bases hosting U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria, including Ain al-Assad base in Iraq and a coalition base in Syria. On July 16th, two drones also attacked al-Assad base, marking the first reported attack since February. No injuries were reported, and the attacks received little media attention.

As the U.S. and Iraq negotiate a drawdown of U.S. troops, which would leave only technical advisors, the militias may be trying to speed up implementation of this decision or show strength. These Iran-aligned militias are also part of the so-called Axis of Resistance which includes Lebanese Hezbollah. Any eruption in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is likely to spur an uptick in activity by the Iraqi militias, particularly against U.S. troops and Israeli targets like the port of Eilat.

The bottom line is that it should not be assumed that these attacks will remain non-lethal. These militias operate outside Iraqi government control and see targeting U.S. troops as part of their raison d'etre. As long as U.S. troops are present, attacks are likely to continue and shows of force to “restore deterrence” will delay — not end — attacks going forward.


Photo credi: Robert Hale/Shutterstock

Photo credi: Robert Hale/Shutterstock

Analysis | Middle East
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.