There’s a tendency in America to view the conflict with Iran through a somewhat outdated lens. Discussions often revolve around traditional concepts of warfare, like bombs or troop deployments. Yet, since 1979, Iran has engaged in asymmetric warfare against the U.S. and its allies—using methods like terrorism, proxy groups, illicit financing, and cyber operations, all designed to keep the actual conflict’s threshold low.
The true danger isn’t merely Iran’s capabilities; it’s also our reluctance to understand the nature of this ongoing struggle.
Many people imagine the conflict as occurring far away, perhaps in places like Gaza or the Strait of Hormuz. However, Iran’s influence runs deep into Latin America, through drug cartels and financial networks that intertwine with operations here in the U.S.
This is no coincidence; it’s been a carefully constructed framework over decades involving proxies, criminal alliances, and hidden financial tactics. For instance, just days after warnings were issued to Congress about the risks of cartel infrastructure, the Department of Justice unveiled charges against individuals connected to this hybrid threat.
One of those charged, Mohammad Baqer Saad Dawood al-Saadi, is linked to Kataib Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed militia. He’s accused of orchestrating attacks on targets in Europe and North America, including a synagogue in Manhattan.
What stands out isn’t just the attack but the underlying operational model that supports it.
Al-Saadi reportedly aimed to collaborate with Mexican cartels, utilizing smuggling channels for coordination. The group behind the attack, Harakat Ahab al-Yamin al-Islamiyah, was designed to appear independent while carrying out the objectives of Iranian networks.
This complex structure offers operational security and plausible deniability, strategies that Iran has honed over the years. In fact, a historical look shows that, in the 1980s, Iranian operatives were already establishing networks in Latin America, which has ultimately facilitated attacks like the bombings in Argentina in the early ’90s.
These actions aren’t isolated; they illustrate a robust architecture geared towards operating below conventional warfare thresholds. Iran views various conflicts, whether in Iraq, Latin America, or elsewhere, as interconnected components of a broader strategy that exploits globalization’s infrastructure.
Hezbollah’s networks, particularly in Latin America, have been deeply intertwined with drug trafficking and money laundering, as established by investigations like Project Cassandra. Recent U.S. sanctions targeted Iran’s extensive financial operations that support its proxy warfare.
The same tactics apply in different contexts. Disruptions in the Red Sea and threats to energy channels through Iranian proxies serve a strategic purpose. In the Western Hemisphere, Iranian influence has merged with local criminal networks.
It’s evident that not every individual linked to these cartels works directly for Tehran, but the vulnerabilities in these corridors are often exploited by hostile actors.
This situation has created substantial tension. While adversaries engage in a continuous form of irregular warfare, the U.S. continues to compartmentalize issues into “war” versus “peace” or “domestic” versus “foreign” categories.
The southern border has evolved into more than just an immigration issue; it’s a strategic entry point for transnational networks, resulting in implications for homeland security.
What’s happening with the al-Saadi case is a stark illustration of a broader threat. The conflict with Iran isn’t a recent phenomenon, nor will it remain confined to distant lands. There is a continuing evolution of proxy networks and illicit operations adapting to extend their reach.
It’s crucial for Americans to rethink how we discuss this issue. This threat is hybrid and already integrated into the fabric of Western societies.
Recognizing this conflict as a persistent asymmetric operation concentrated within our borders is essential for preparing an effective defense.
