>> what is the extent of u.s. military aid to israel for gaza? washington has been sending military assets to the region, saying they are for deterrence purposes. but are they really? and could it trigger a wider conflict in the middle east? this is "inside story." ♪ hello again. i am james bays. refugee camps, hospitals, apartment blocks, know where in gaza is safe from israel's bombardment of the besieged territory.

the humanitarian needs are dire and growing by the minute. yet israel's biggest ally, the united states, is still not calling for a ceasefire. instead, it is sending more military assets to the region. washington says the aircraft carriers and naval support vessels will serve as a deterrent. but could american troops join the war? and what would this mean for the middle east? priority for us to discuss with our panel. at first, this report. [screaming] reporter: andrew -- a grim moustakas. 18 days into the war, that israeli bombardment has killed more than 5700 palestinians. daily life in the besieged territory is synonymous with the unpredictability of air strikes. but throughout the offensive, the united states has maintained an unwavering commitment to israel. pres. biden: we must be crystal clear, we stand with a zero experience with israel. who wouldn't ensure it has what it needs to take care of

business, and help from her and responded to this attack. while international calls for an immediate cease-fire grown louder -- >> [protestors chanting] >> cease fire now! cease fire now! reporter: the u.s. and western allies have refrained from asking israel to scale back its attacks on gaza. instead, washington has sent not one but two aircraft carriers and their strike groups to the region. each has roughly 7500 military personnel. it is one of the largest deployments of u.s. troops to the mediterranean in decades. >> this additional deployment sends another message to those who would seek to widen this conflict, which president biden said earlier and as you have heard me say, if any group or any country is seeking to widen this conflict and take advantage of this very unfortunate

situation that we see, our advice is don't. reporter: iran's foreign minister has accused the white house of double standards. >> we have been saved messages asking after practice re-strengthen also asked us to invite others to show restraint back, the u.s. of -- over the past two weeks have been sending military equipment to israel. so how can they say they don't want the expansion of war? now i am saying to bag down stop your proxy. reporter: the u.s. hopes -- so how can they say they don't want the expansion of war? now i am saying to batted in, stop your epoxy. reporter: the u.s. hopesreporter: its support for israel and its own increased military presence in the region will be enough to prevent the conflict from widening. but it's also clear that any miscalculation between iran and the united states risks changing the dynamics of this war very quickly. sara gill for "inside story." ♪ james: let's bring in our panel of guests to discuss this further. in doha, we have colin clarke, who's director of research at the soufan group, a global

intelligence and security consultancy. in new york, omar rahman is a fellow at the middle east council on global affairs, where he focuses on palestine, middle east clear politics and american foreign policy in the region. and in boston, it's glen carel, career cia officer. he's a former deputy national intelligence officer for transnational threats at the agency. great to have you all with us to discuss what is going on in the region, and particularly what is going on with regard to the u.s. permits, because more and more u.s. assets are going to the region, particularly naval assets. some people say it is the biggest part -- the biggest armada seen in the region since the 1990's. would you agree with that? guest: i don't know if that is true, but certainly believe that it is true. two aircraft carriers bring along as part of your combat -- they deployed with probably a

dozen ships or more each, so that is probably a true statement, yes. james: colin, i've been looking quite hard to get information from the pentagon website, but reading throughout the transcription everything that is out there in the as he says, we have got the largest worship in the world, the uss gerald ford, we have another aircraft carrier, that dwight d. eisenhower, and a total of eight warships. two strike groups. that we have something called the amphibious ready group which has on three shifts, capital of 4000 sailors and marines and. this is a very large deployment, isn't it? guest: yeah, it's a massive muscular response from washington, people carrier strike groups, patriot batteries, missile-defense. james: sorry, we would not have any jargon, just tell me what that is, quickly. guest: [laughs] trevor noah your

altitude missile-defense, force protection, deterrence, and if need be, intentional offensive assets. there is also intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance of these carrier strike as well. preparation from washington in case things escalate. james: staying with you, what is your reading of the main reason for sending so much to the region? guest: i think, first about, it is deterrence, a warning to the iranians and iranian-sponsored groups like hezbollah to remain on the sidelines, or at least keep their activity to a very low and manageable level. but again, it's also to protect the -- protect th e bases the united states has in the region. they want to be prepared in case

they need these assets, including to evacuate american citizens from a number of countries middle east. james: omar, let me ask you how you think this will region, because one person/deterrence, be another person's provocation. guest: the opinion on this split to some extent study relationship with the united states and right are coming from and how we are the current conflict, though i think across the arab world, there is heavy concern for this escalating. in some senses may be not a provocation, but certainly, the u.s. is escalating the situation by naval forces into the region. it's, innocence essence, emboldening israel to carry on with gaza. that is absolutely the source of the escalation at the moment, the reason why there is anger across the arab world. that would be the reason why you might see attacks on military is

region -- military bases in the region, or what we have seen with houthi rebels firing rockets toward israel, if that is actually where they were headed. its emboldening israel to carry out this mission in the region. james: glenn, see if i am right with my assumption here. my assumption is that there sending this armada because they can't use their military bases and airbase in doha and the naval base in bahrain because of the circumstances right now is that correct? guest: partially correct. it certainly would a complicating factor to use forces out of doha, given qatar's relationship with hamas and the muslim brotherhood. however, i do not think that is a merry reason. i believe as the first speaker said, clearly, to me, the primary objective is deterrence,

dissuasion. the buildup is not to enable the israelis to act, but rather, to keep conflict from spreading,, original or even robert moore. i think -- becoming an even broader war. i think most arab governments -- more relevant to signals from countries, understand that and they don't want to see the conflict and tonight the accepting of the u.s. deployment. what we call the arab strait is another matter and muslims will be dissatisfied and angry and what they all and characterize provocation. but to me, mayor weaver objective of the united states is to stop iran's proxies from provoking israel or the united states that the conflict generalizes into a wider war.

james: colin, we've talked about the deterrence role, but there's also a role in protecting u.s. assets that are already in the region. let me read you a quote from the pentagon press secretary -- "we will do everything and take all necessary measures to protect u.s. forces." we have already seen some instances with regard to what has gone on in the red sea and what has had iraq and syria. first in the red sea, there was a u.s. warship that uss carney, which took down four land attack cruise missiles. we think they came from the houthis. is that your understanding? guest: it seems likely. it is consonant with previous behavior and actions by the houthis, and for the united states, it's just unacceptable. it's not going to allow its personnel or its bases to be targeted by any actor in the region. james: on that, you know what the houthis were aiming at?

the protagonist with my salary took them down they didn't necessarily think they were aimed at the uss carney and they were going in the direction of israel. do they have anything that can hit israel? it's possible. they could have been headed that way. one thing this conflict has tart as it is that we need to question prior assumptions. many people didn't make hamas have the capabilities. displayed on october 7. so i would be very concerned about examining prior assumptions about the capabilities of hezbollah, the houthis, iraqi shia militia and others. clearly the iranians have helped them develop capabilities. they have given them all sorts of hardware and missiles. at this stage we are still in the early stages of the conflict . we are hoping to keep it to a low boil. it's best to be in a defensive posture.

james: we have also seen attacks in syria and iraq. there are still based in iraq, 2500 u.s. troops, and in syria , 900 u.s. troops, but also military contractors. i think some people would be quite surprised there are still so many u.s. troops in iraq and syria. what are they doing? guest: multiple missions. one, of course, is to continue to observe and try to stop isis or jihadist groups and elements from conducting terrorist operations and destabilizing things. another is to help try to keep the governments in place from being destabilized further by terrorist actions. and third is to watch over, to the extent possible, iranian efforts to extend its influence, which is a large component of

the houthis, with the groups in syria, with hezbollah on the border, and with hamas. iran is playing in cynical, very dangerous game. the stabilization and travel, death and president trump in israel is a good thing for iran because it's hostile to israel theological, philosophical and political regions. it helps iran extend its influence. one of the missions of the u.s. presence there is to try to keep this kind of destabilization from occurring and to stop the shia, meaning iranian influence, from spreading even further than it has. james: omar, apparently, we think about eight attacks on u.s. troops in four different locations in iraq and syria, and it is interesting reading what has been said by the u.s. hierarchy, i have quoted the pentagon press secretary before,

"we don't necessarily see that iran expressly ordered them." yet the white house and the communications coordinator john kirby, "we know that iran is closely monitoring these attacks and in some cases actively facilitating these attacks." what is your view on how involved iran is? is iran ordering this? guest: whether they are ordering the attacks in places like syria and iraq, it's possible given their links to those groups operating in those countries. i think it was a little overstated in terms of, you know, their connection to the initial hamas attack on october 7. clearly they are a financial backer or material backer of hamas. a lot of the reporting that came out of october 7 implied or directly asserted that iran was heavily involved in the planning process. i think that is overstating the connection. but certainly i think their connection is much deeper to the armed groups operating in syria and iraq.

i don't know whether they are directly involved, but it is worth considering, for sure. james: colin, you brought up the acronym "fad" in the first place. what that u.s. is deploying in these specific attacks in iraq and syria is this terminal highl altitude area defense system, or "thad." explain to me what these things do. guest: patriot or missile-defense batteries or surface-to-air missiles are going to be used to guard against what we saw the other day. the united states and the pentagon clearly expects more of that in the days ahead. so this is again, a defensive and precautionary measure to protect united states assets. it's nothing more, it's nothing

less. the iranians, for their part, are doing what they always do, continuing to attempt to polish the united states out of the region and extend their own influence. james: glenn we have to thousand extra troops in addition to those marines i told you about who are at sea, and all the other naval personnel. 2000 extra u.s. troops are on standby to deploy with heavy readiness. is that one of the circumstances in which these troops could actually do something? you deploy troops as a deterrent, but you have to think about where you might use them. there might be circumstances where they could be used. what would you say to that? guest: this is where the line is not easy to draw very clearly, but i think that example of the carney is a good example. the numbers we have seen -- the records we have seen which are purported to have been fired from the houthi, to my i come it

appears it was firing at the ship. but the response for the u.s. was to shoot down the missile, and then to say it had occurred, and do nothing else. in other circumstances, the united states military would want to eliminate the threat, the perpetrator of an attack like that. but it hasn't happened. why? >> because it seems pretty clear that the description of the h thad system that you just heard from, it describes what u.s. objectives are, which is to parry attacks and keep that war from spreading. if, however, the u.s. forces and facilities were seriously harmed, americans killed, capabilities destroyed, then it would be much more difficult for the united states not to use the

2000 soldiers, the marines i think they are, who are in place , as a dissuasive measure. they are there not to be used. the success is not to see them have to be deployed. a failure of american objectives would be that the iranian proxies succeed in causing such harm that the u.s. or israel would feel obliged to respond with force rather than just countermeasures. james: omar, so if the u.s. are attacked, that is what the forces are therefore and what they might actually be used. you see any other circumstances where these forces could be deployed given how uncertain things are with regard to the war on gaza and a possible escalation in the north bringing in hezbollah? guest: yeah, i think the primary reason for them being there and this was mentioned, the primary cause of escalation would be if

u.s. forces were attacked. but i think if there was a massive assault on israel, say, if hezbollah were to fire rockets into israel, you might see the united states respond. i mentioned earlier, it is enabling israel -- i didn't want to imply the u.s. was seeking escalation in the region -- the carrier forces are there to deter. but, obviously, that type of deterrence is read by israel as kind of a license to do what it wants and that can spark that type of escalation. if it does come from lebanon or elsewhere, iran or syria or iraq in a massive scale something, that can't be handled with minimal effort, i could see the u.s. getting involved in this and that is a very slippery slope and a dangerous occurrence. james: colin, are there other possible roles giving up all these naval assets there? could there be a role for them in the extraction of u.s. disease who are being held captive?

could there be a role for them in intelligence and surveillance for israel? i assume they have quite a lot of capabilities in that regard. and could there be a base for some sort of covert action by special forces? guest: look, the troops are not purely ornamental. they are there for a reason. again, i think this is largely about preparation. this is about the possibility of a noncombatant evacuation operation getting u.s. citizens out of the region if need be. logistical support -- you mentioned intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. i think as a very, very last resort, the u.s. would use them in a kinetic way. but really the united states does not want to get involved in this conflict, this is purely about escalation management. these are the assets being brought into theater to achieve that. james: glenn, we have talked about the possibility of the northern front becoming the second found, a two-front war.

some have talked about the west bank becoming a third front. and we have talked about hezbollah getting involved in this conflict. but there are also reports that the israeli defense minister, your gut land, has advocated a preemptive strike -- yoav gallant, has advocated for a brianti strike in the north. if israel would do that, that puts the u.s. than in the very difficult position, doesn't it, if it is israel that starts the fight in the north. guest: it could possibly be the case, yes. it would depend -- and everything always depends on the size of a "preemptive strike," and the amount of damage and killing caused. it is certainly true that hezbollah in conventional military terms, is exponentially more powerful than hamas. and we all have heard the

reports that iran has provided hezbollah with 120,000 to 140,000 rockets, many of which can strike any part of israel. there range extends well beyond the borders of the farthest point away on israel. so israel has a real legitimate concern about is an attack, from our assessments, imminent, and would it be less dangerous to preemptively strike to try to stop that, or not? that's a very difficult equation. so far,, consistently, the israelis have shown restraint because they don't want to expand the war either. but that is a very complex equation that one has to make in real time when all the decisions

have negative consequences. if you go right, it's negative, if you go left, it's negative. and yet, you have to go in some direction. that is the challenge they have. that is certainly why they would be considering a preemptive strike in the seemingly paradoxical objective of limiting harm, but expansion of the conflict actually. james: colin, how much restraint does the u.s. have? the ability to restrain israel if it wants? i have read reports that it is u.s. attorney general james glenn, who previously haddad maia in special operations and was involved in operations against isil in iraq, he has been embedded now in the command structure at the defense ministry in tel aviv. guest: it's unclear how much the united states can limit the israeli response. i think israel will listen to

u.s. advisors. and i think the united states has little interest in watching this conflict as, and zero-interest in getting dragged into it. the united states is over there providing advice and hoping cooler heads prevail. let's not forget the human suffering, the hostages involved, and the children that are dying every day in this conflict. this is heart wrenching to watch. . i think anybody with a heart is hoping that this war ends sooner rather than later and i hope the united states is helping to find a way to bring it to anand. james: omar, major military power projection like this also has a global diplomatic effect. how do you think this will be seen, this u.s. troop presence in the region by russia and china? guest: it is a little difficult to say. obviously, china has warships in the region that have been there

for a while. that dynamic creates a certain type of tension we don't want to see escalate into that arena. how those powers are perceiving it, it is difficult to say. i know how this has evolved, if the biden administration didn't want to see escalation -- and i don't think it does -- but it's reflexive reaction to this whole episode from d1 has brought us to this point. if you didn't think it would bring us to this point this was their mistake, eon its end, to think that there is rarely's bombardment of the gaza strip would do. after this point. it has been a dangerous, game that is escalating tensions in the region and i don't think anybody wants to see it evolve into something much worse, but that's the direction we're headed. james: glenn, could i get your reaction to great anniversary

just passed. 40 years ago, it was october 23, 1983 when a suicide bomber hit the u.s. military barracks in beirut international airport, killing 241 u.s. servicemen. that was a disastrous moment in the u.s.'s involvement in the middle east, and now the president is joe biden, and he knows histories. he lives it. he was u.s. senator at the time. he said we have got to change this crazy policy as he introduced a resolution calling for the u.s. withdrawn from lebanon. what is your thought on that echo from history? guest: some of my colleagues were killed in the attacks on the marine barracks and the american embassy, which occurred not for distant in time from each other. one of the lessons that some parts of the u.s. learned was, the primary reason for those two attacks was that we were seen to have been -- we were seen to have taken sides in elementary a

civil war, but also between the palestine liberation organisation and israel. so we angered one of the sides enough to try to kill us. a tactical lesson that we learned was that the rules of engagement the american forces deployed at the time were designed to avoid escalation, which is a laudable objective, but admitted that the response in real time was insufficient, meaning that some of our guards were not allowed to fire at and approaches we sidetracked. those rules of engagement subsequently to. i think in the current crisis, it is relevant because of what we have all been talking about, is the advanced deployment of tremendous force. and the repeated warnings that the united states believes it, it provoked -- if provoked.

if someone tries to expand the conflict. james: ok, thank you very much for that lesson from history. for all the talk of a. pivot to asia, it seems the u.s. is being forced back to the middle east. thanks to all our guests, colin clarke, omar rahman and glenn carle. you can find much more detail on the conflict on our website. and if you want to watch this or any other of our programs, go to aljazeera.com. if you have your own opinions on what you just heard, then post them on our facebook page. facebook.com/ajinsidestory. we'd also like to hear you from you, too, on x, formerly twitter, where we are @ajinsidestory. from me, james bays and everyone on the team here in doha, stay safe and bye for now. ♪

- [latria] i love this place and i hate this place, like i am this place, you know. - [john] i found my freedom here in the deepest dankest mud of the mississippi river. - [latria] i will come and sit here for five minutes and i go back and i have to put my armor on and go back to work. - [mark] this river is a lifesaver for me, man, it has become my church. you know i think everybody has something in their life that changes them. [ambient music] - [male announcer]: support for reel south is provided by: additional funding for "stay here awhile" is provided by: