Dynamic Force Employment is the Future of America’s Middle East Presence

The US aircraft carrier "USS Dwight Eisenhower" crosses the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Gulf on November 26, 2023. INFORMATION TECHNICIAN SECOND CLASS RUSKIN NAVAL / AP
The US aircraft carrier "USS Dwight Eisenhower" crosses the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Gulf on November 26, 2023. INFORMATION TECHNICIAN SECOND CLASS RUSKIN NAVAL / AP
TT

Dynamic Force Employment is the Future of America’s Middle East Presence

The US aircraft carrier "USS Dwight Eisenhower" crosses the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Gulf on November 26, 2023. INFORMATION TECHNICIAN SECOND CLASS RUSKIN NAVAL / AP
The US aircraft carrier "USS Dwight Eisenhower" crosses the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Gulf on November 26, 2023. INFORMATION TECHNICIAN SECOND CLASS RUSKIN NAVAL / AP

Few things grab the attention of Arab leaders who are friendly to Washington more than America’s military presence in the region. Even the slightest drawdown greatly worries and often drives them to assume the worst about US intentions.

A calm assessment of America’s changing geopolitical priorities, followed by an understanding of how the United States has sought to adjust its military posture in the region, should ease the worries of Arab partners, or at least some of them.

While it is true that the United States has reached fatigue in the Middle East given its costly interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the more powerful driver behind reducing military investments in the region is the US strategic prioritization of the Indo-Pacific and European theaters.

Checking China and countering Russia requires more resources than previously allocated to each respective theater, and given that US resources are limited, they must be brought in from other places. By any objective account, the United States had an oversized presence in the Middle East, which made the region a natural candidate for a reduced US military footprint.

The view of US abandonment of the Middle East has needlessly dominated policy and emotions in the region. It remains baseless. So long as the region contains strategic natural resources including high percentages of oil and gas, and so long as the export of those resources is crucial for the wellbeing of the international economy, the United States will care about the region and devote resources to maintain stability in that vital part of the world. The question now is how the United States can preserve its interests, strengthen its partnerships, and commit to its stabilizing mission in the region with fewer resources at its disposal.

There’s no doubt that Washington has struggled with this question at the policy level – the conflict between Israel and Hamas is just the latest example of the limitations of US Middle East policy. But what’s encouraging is that the US Department of Defense has stepped up and proposed some creative ideas regarding the future of America’s military presence in the region. Enter dynamic force employment.

The concept of dynamic force employment was officially introduced in the 2018 National Defense Strategy. Implemented in the Middle East more than anywhere else lately, it seeks to reduce routine deployments to provide flexibility and make peacetime force movements more agile without compromising on combat readiness. Current commander of US Air Forces Central Command, Lt. Gen. Greg Guillot, argued that “dynamic force employment deployments demonstrate the ability to move combat capability into theater just in time for when it is required, not just in case it might be needed.”

Dynamic force employment also better protects US forces from Iran’s threat of missiles and unmanned aerial systems. In his posture statement on March 15, 2022, former CENTCOM Commander Gen. Frank McKenzie correctly noted that “distributing forces more broadly outside of the most significant Iranian threat ranges not only enhances survivability but also demonstrates an increased capability to rapidly mass combat effects...”

And that’s precisely what CENTCOM has demonstrated in its approach to the region over the past few weeks and months. We’ve seen the United States deploy additional military assets including aircraft carriers, warships, and fighter aircraft to respond to the rising threat of Iran’s threat network. These resources had to come from other regions including Europe and even from military bases in the United States.

Dynamic force employment shouldn’t suggest that the United States has switched to a strategy of offshore balancing or that it is about to gradually give up its forward-deployed military presence in the Middle East. An effective posture that contributes to the missions of deterrence, reassurance, and security cooperation must have an element of forward deployment.

To deter Iran, the United States must have assets in theater to affect the decision-making calculus of the leadership in Tehran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. To be sure, US deterrence against Iran has been contested. But it would be even less effective without immediate and powerful American means of punishment in theater that could prevent Iran from quickly establishing facts on the ground in a crisis.

To reassure partners, the United States needs visible and permanent military power in the region. Regional partners feel a lot more reassured by the constant basing of American troops and equipment on their soil because it reflects a certain level of US commitment to their security. Also, to effectively conduct security cooperation, the United States needs troops and trained personnel in the region to advise and assist their counterparts. The entire enterprise of security cooperation is about building trust and personal relationships, and you simply cannot do that remotely.

How much forward presence is necessary to effectively pursue all three of these missions is always hard to know. One also has to recognize that when it comes to posture, there is an inherent tension between deterrence, reassurance, and security cooperation.

While security cooperation doesn’t need a large US footprint – it needs the right kind of personnel in the right places more than anything else – partners will always prefer a robust and sizable presence. With respect to deterrence, it is virtually impossible to know how much US firepower is enough to be effective because the concept itself is incredibly hard to measure and evaluate (it also depends on several other variables including credibility and consistency) and because Iran consistently operates below the threshold of war.

Dynamic force employment is supposed to smartly balance between all three missions by keeping a forward-deployed presence while putting a bigger premium on maintaining access, investing in adaptability, and building resilience. This is particularly challenging because regional partners could decide to reduce US access if they see that Washington is further drawing down its physical presence.

Access becomes even more important to the United States as tensions with Iran grow and the likelihood of war increases. The first few moments of a potential confrontation or even military crisis between the United States and Iran require a high degree of US operational flexibility, which can only be enabled by access.

In the end, any US discussion of posture, be it in the Middle East or elsewhere, should be informed first and foremost by strategy. Strategy drives posture, not the other way around. There is no point in debating numbers of American troops and capabilities in the Middle East if Washington doesn't have a clear idea of what objectives it wants those troops and capabilities to achieve.

But even when that moment of clarity in US Middle East strategy comes, Washington should always remember that the regional partners get a vote. Without their access and permission, the United States can do very little in the Middle East.



Iranians Fear Trump Comeback will Bring Them More Pain

A woman walks past the former US embassy compound in Tehran, which has skulls embedded in the wall - AFP
A woman walks past the former US embassy compound in Tehran, which has skulls embedded in the wall - AFP
TT

Iranians Fear Trump Comeback will Bring Them More Pain

A woman walks past the former US embassy compound in Tehran, which has skulls embedded in the wall - AFP
A woman walks past the former US embassy compound in Tehran, which has skulls embedded in the wall - AFP

When Donald Trump was last in the White House, he pursued a policy of "maximum pressure" against Iran, including punishing sanctions.

Now that he is set to begin another term as US president in January, anxiety is mounting in Tehran that more of the same will follow.

During Trump's first term, the United States also killed a revered Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps general in an airstrike on Baghdad airport in Iraq.
"It will be harmful for Iran," said 37-year-old Bashir Abbaspour, who works at a private company, reflecting widespread concern in Iran as news broke on Wednesday of Trump's victory.

His win came with the Middle East in turmoil after the outbreak of the Gaza war in October 2023, triggered by the unprecedented attack by Iran-backed Palestinian militant group Hamas on Israel.

Iranians best remember Trump for his campaign of intensified sanctions and Washington's 2018 withdrawal from a landmark nuclear deal that offered Tehran sanctions relief in return for curbs on its nuclear ambitions.

The deal's collapse took a toll on ordinary Iranians grappling with galloping inflation and a sharp depreciation of the rial against the US dollar.

"The sanctions will increase, and with that, the prices will too. It's not a good thing for Iran," Abbaspour said of Trump's comeback.

Washington officially broke off relations with Tehran a year after the Islamic revolution in 1979, and ties have been frozen ever since.

- 'No difference' -

On Wednesday, the conservative Jam-e Jam newspaper featured front-page pictures of the two main US candidates, the Republican Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris, with two demons depicted looming behind them.

"The result of the US elections will make no difference for us," read the daily's main headline, citing Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

Reza Aram, a 51-year-old insurance agent, agreed. He said Washington's attitude towards Iran "won't change", regardless of who is president there.

"Iran's relations (with the US) will be the same (with Trump) as with Democrats," he said.

President Masoud Pezeshkian, who took office in Iran in July, has said he sought to shore up ties with West and revive the nuclear deal and end Iran's isolation.

But in recent weeks, Araghchi has said indirect nuclear talks with the United States have stopped because of regional tensions.

On October 1, Iran fired around 200 missiles at Israel in retaliation for the killing of Iran-backed militant leaders including Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah and a Revolutionary Guards commander.

In April, in its first ever direct assault on Israeli territory, Iran launched hundreds of drones and missiles in response to a deadly strike on its consulate in Damascus, which it blamed on Israel.

- 'Under pressure' -

During Trump's first term, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in all matters of state, called him "unbalanced" and "foul-mouthed" as he addressed laughing crowds in Tehran.

When in 2020 Trump ordered the killing of Iran's esteemed IRGC general Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad, Tehran responded by attacking bases housing US troops in Iraq.

In the months leading up to Tuesday's vote in the United States, American officials charged that Iran was attempting to interfere in the elections, and Trump accused Tehran of posing "big threats" to his life.

On July 13, after a gunman wounded Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania, US media reported that authorities had received intelligence about an alleged Iranian plot against him.

Iran roundly denied the accusations as "malicious".

Now, with Trump due to be back in office soon and with memories of his previous term still fresh, Iranians find themselves left with little but hope for better days ahead.

"I'm worried right now about the situation of the country and its economy," said 56-year-old Zahra Eghbali. "People are under pressure."

"Both sides should come to an agreement that is to the benefit of the people."