The U.S. is intensifying its military presence in the region, citing escalating tensions in the Middle East triggered by Hamas’ Operation Aqsa Flood on October 7 and Israel’s airstrikes on Gaza.
According to Haaretz, a reputable Israeli newspaper, 80 U.S. military cargo planes have arrived in the region since October 7. Furthermore, multiple civilian aircraft, employed by both U.S. and Israeli defense units, are actively transporting weapons to the area. As per the Israeli Ministry of Defence, planes arriving at Nevatim Air Base are delivering weaponry for the Israeli army, while those touching down at Ben-Gurion International Airport are laden with armored vehicles.
Apart from the shipments to Israel, eight heavy cargo aircraft originating from warehouses in the US and Europe have touched down at the American base in Jordan. Additionally, twenty heavy cargo aircraft have landed at the British Air Force military base in Southern Cyprus. Furthermore, two squadrons of F-15E bombers and A-10 attack aircraft have been dispatched to the base in Jordan.
In addition to the shipment of weapons and equipment, the U.S. has dispatched two carrier strike groups to the region. The Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier is currently stationed southwest of the island of Cyprus and is equipped with approximately 80 attack, electronic warfare, and intelligence aircraft. This strike group also consists of several warships armed with Tomahawk missiles. The Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier, which the U.S. has deployed to the Middle East, is anticipated to enter the Mediterranean the following weekend, transiting through the Strait of Gibraltar.
On Sunday, the U.S. administration also made public its decision to deploy THAAD missiles and additional Patriot missile systems to the region, aimed at intercepting ballistic missiles. Michael Erik Kurilla, the head of U.S. Central Command, stated, “With the increasing number of attacks and attempted attacks on U.S. military bases, it is critical that we continually review our force protection measures,” in an interview with Reuters. With Israel’s ground offensive in Gaza underway, it is expected that attacks on U.S. bases in the region, particularly in Syria and Iraq, may intensify. According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), referencing information from U.S. and Israeli officials, the U.S. requested Israel to delay its Gaza offensive until Israel could establish air defense systems to safeguard its troops in the region, a request to which Israel acquiesced.
We had a discussion with retired Colonel Ünal Atabay regarding the motives behind the significant U.S. military buildup in the region. We also explored potential scenarios for the impending ground offensive in Gaza, the risks associated with the conflict expanding throughout the region, and the potential geopolitical transformations that this war might bring about in the medium and long term.
Why is the US making such a heavy build-up in the Eastern Mediterranean?
In the clearest terms, it is to support Israel’s ground offensive. This support does not mean actually supporting the ground offensive. It is done in order to prevent any attempt to prevent Israel’s ground offensive or the opening of another front. In particular, in order to prevent Hezbollah from opening a front from Lebanon, or Iranian-backed groups from creating a different front from the Golan, or militia groups in Iraq from creating a front in an area that would threaten Israel through Jordan, it has sent its navy and air defence systems to protect its bases in the Middle East, which are already under attack. More succinctly, it has two aims: To ensure the security of its own bases and to strengthen Israel’s hand. The US is suppressing the Iranian-backed forces so that Israel does not have to divert its energies and attention elsewhere.
What kind of pressure? Firstly, it can put pressure with its deterrence power. Secondly, in line with the measures it has taken, it can fire at the elements it deems threatening. Thirdly, possibly simultaneously with the ground offensive, it can hit some critical points of Iran and Iran-backed groups in Syria, especially Hezbollah in the Lebanese field.
In this scenario, there seems to be no possibility of the conflict not expanding. In other words, if the US is building up to prevent the war from spreading to the region, wouldn’t a pre-emptive strike against targets in Lebanon, Iraq or Syria have the opposite effect?
There are two scenarios. When the offensive operation starts, there is a high probability that these groups will mobilise due to the serious increase in casualties associated with it. When the ground offensive starts, the US may strike them. Before these groups mobilise, it may strike them as a preventive measure against the possibility of mobilisation. In any case, I assess that there is a plan to hit these groups. Will there be a risk of proliferation? Of course, this time militia groups may move themselves to a more activist point, which may trigger the spread of conflicts to the area. It also increases the risk of Iran being threatened by the US.
The US wants to produce an effect here with its deterrence power, and it will want to suppress it by hitting some critical targets. I think that it will act by using controlled force, that is, by preventing it from spreading to the field. But if it follows a strategy by saying that there is a need for geopolitical change in the Middle East while the opportunity is at hand, then it requires much more extensive deployment and additional forces. I do not think this is the case at the moment.
The US has many bases in the region. Why did he need the aircraft carrier?
Just as we can control the planes that take off from Incirlik and say that we do not let them use it where we do not want, Qatar or Jordan will not want the planes that will target Iranian-backed militias to take off from these bases. In such a situation, the US sent its aircraft carriers to avoid tensions with Arab countries. In other words, in the event of a possible air attack, it can lift its aircraft from aircraft carriers stationed in international waters without any problems with Arab countries. It can also use long-range missiles here.
Do you think that the ground offensive expected for Gaza will be a total invasion or a limited operation?
I think it will be a limited, controlled operation. Within the framework of the principles of warfare in built-up areas, they will create a security strip that will probably divide Gaza in two directions and reach the sea. They will break the ties between the elements above the ground and carry out critical operations in these disconnected areas. There cannot be a situation such as searching every house and every room. There will also be an operation to control the entrances and exits of the tunnels. Tunnels can be monitored with certain equipment. It will mainly target Hamas’ leadership cadres. In summary, I think they will carry out a limited controlled and leader-oriented operation.
Before the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, we were talking about the US withdrawal from the region and the entry of a new multi-actor era in the region. Do you think the US build-up in the region on the grounds of this crisis is temporary, or is there a ‘return to the old’ in the medium and long term, or is a completely different ‘new’ awaiting the region?
There is a rising China in the world. China’s increasing interest in the Middle East is well known. It has made investments in many countries in the region, especially in the Gulf countries, and has become a partner in major projects such as transport corridors. It is known that the US is uncomfortable with these Chinese initiatives. There is a concern that there is a power vacuum with the withdrawal of the US and that China will fill this vacuum. While the US has a military presence in the Middle East, China has a soft power and financial power. With the help of this power, China has started to develop and organise its relations with the Middle East. It brought together Iran and Saudi Arabia, two countries that were thought to be unlikely to come together. In other words, it opened some important strategic cards to the parties so that they were convinced. This was not easy, but he succeeded. It is natural for the US to be disturbed by this. It has already taken immediate action, and the project of reconciling Israel with the Arab world for Israel’s security was emphasised. It has turned into such a field of competition. China-Iran relations, Russia-Iran relations, especially Iran’s serious support for Russia, and Iran’s expansion in the region triggered the concern that the US would lose the Middle East.
The reason why China wants to be present in the region is that ‘a multi-centred world order is at the door’. China says, “There will be a competition in the Middle East, this cannot be unilateral, I am also present”. In the possible design in the Middle East, China wants to say “I am also in the field and have the power to take the initiative”. China, which was on the field with its soft power before, now wants to show itself on the field with its military capacity.
The US was strategically orientated towards Asia-Pacific, but you cannot move towards Asia-Pacific without ensuring security in the Middle East. The Middle East is the stepping stone for Asia-Pacific. The US had ignored this, but with China’s move, it clearly saw this. On the occasion of the Hamas-Israel conflict, the US will reconsider its deployments in order to increase its power in the Middle East and not to leave a power vacuum. The conflict has become an occasion for this, or the US has turned this crisis into an opportunity.
