The New Pattern of U.S. Intervention from Europe to the Middle East
The New Pattern of U.S. Intervention from Europe to the Middle East
The recent drone attacks by Ukraine on Russia at the beginning of this month, as well as Israel’s military attack on Iranian soil, have remarkable and, in some cases, astonishing similarities. These similarities can play a clear role in understanding new patterns in the military and diplomatic behavior of the United States.
Firstly, both attacks occurred at a time when negotiations between the U.S. and the countries targeted by these attacks, namely Russia and Iran, had not yet reached a conclusion within the specific timeframes defined by Washington. In fact, it seems that the timing of these military actions coincided with the failure of diplomatic routes.
Another common feature is that both operations were heavily dependent on the execution of covert and complex security programs, actions that require precise coordination, intelligence gathering from human or technical sources, and conducting operations on enemy soil with maximum secrecy.
On the surface, the United States was not directly involved in either of these two attacks, but there are differences. In the case of the Israeli attack, evidence suggests that the U.S. was informed in advance, not only did it not object, but it apparently issued implicit approval and even set conditions for its execution. In the case of the Ukrainian operation, there is less transparency, but given the sensitivity and scale of the attack, it seems unlikely that the U.S. was completely unaware.
Both of these attacks pursued two main objectives: firstly, the destruction of strategically important assets, including Russian long-range aircraft and Iran’s nuclear infrastructure; secondly, creating a sense of vulnerability in the target country through covert operations within its borders, and instilling the perception that more infiltrating agents might be active inside.
Another noteworthy point is the type of response to these attacks, which so far has mainly involved the use of drones, without leading to a full-scale military war using classical ground or air forces. This indicates that the parties involved have so far sought to maintain a level of control and avoid entering an irreversible phase of conflict.
Despite the clarity of these similarities, their strategic importance and dimensions have received less attention and need to be examined from the perspective of U.S. policy. These developments show that the U.S. still pays serious attention to these conflicts. In other words, Washington’s tendency to reduce the costs of global intervention is not absolute. The U.S. still has interests in both regions, Europe and the Middle East, which are pursued through indirect means. In the Israeli attack, the U.S. played a regulatory role with prior knowledge and imposed restrictions. Regarding Ukraine, although it officially claims ignorance, considering the transfer of information and logistical and intelligence support to Ukraine, this claim is not analytically defensible.
In both scenarios, the United States sought to achieve diplomatic solutions and failed to reach a common and executable understanding with the opposing party. This failure paved the way for the issuance of implicit approval for attacks by regional allies. Thus, two clear messages from the U.S. can be identified: first, a genuine interest in negotiating and resolving strategic issues with target countries, and second, granting conditional freedom of action to client states in the event of negotiation failures without direct U.S. involvement on the battlefield.
These client states, which act as the executive arm of Washington’s regional policies, benefit from intelligence and military support if the opposing parties do not comply with U.S. demands, while the U.S. itself avoids putting its human resources at risk. This type of policymaking, while maintaining Washington’s influence, allows it to play a regulatory role and remain ostensibly neutral without claiming indifference. This balance has enabled the U.S. to maintain its diplomatic channels and avoid completely burning political bridges.
From a military perspective, the noteworthy point is the increased use of covert and unconventional operations. It is still unclear how much of these operations rely on human agents and how much on electronic tracking tools. Although some claim that target identification is mainly based on human data, it is also possible that such statements are actually an attempt to conceal the vulnerabilities of modern technological tools, such as the easy disclosure of location through devices like laptops and mobile phones.
Overall, what holds more analytical importance is not merely the geopolitical dimensions of these developments but the messages these events convey about the evolution of warfare and the changing behavior of the United States. This trend indicates a transition from traditional wars to more complex, flexible, and covert patterns.