
Kurilla warfare: Meet the general leading US military forces in the Middle East amid Iran conflict
Army Gen. Michael "Erik" Kurilla is no stranger to conflict, especially in the Middle East.
Two decades ago as a lieutenant colonel, he was at the front lines of combat fighting off insurgents in Mosul, Iraq, while leading the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment. The battalion's mission was to conduct security patrols and coordinate offensive attacks against anti-Iraqi insurgents targeting Iraqi security forces and Iraqi police stations.
During Kurilla's tenure leading the battalion, more than 150 soldiers earned the Purple Heart for injuries, and the battalion lost at least a dozen soldiers, The New York Times reported in August 2005.
"There will always be somebody willing (to) pick up an AK-47 and shoot Americans," Kurilla told The New York Times in August 2005.
Kurilla did not complete that deployment unscathed. Later, in August 2005, Kurilla found himself caught in a Mosul, Iraq, firefight, where he sustained multiple gunshot wounds, earning him a Bronze Star with valor and one of his two Purple Heart awards.
Now, Kurilla is facing another battle as the commander of U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, serving as the top military officer overseeing U.S. military forces based in the Middle East.
That means Kurilla, who attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, is at the forefront of military operations as President Donald Trump contemplates whether to engage in military strikes against Iran's nuclear sites.
CENTCOM is one of the U.S. military's 11 combatant commands and encompasses 21 nations in the Middle East in its area of operations, including Iraq and Afghanistan.
Those familiar with Kurilla claim he's the perfect person for the job. Retired Army Gen. Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described Kurilla as the ideal leader for CENTCOM in 2022 when Biden nominated Kurilla for the role.
"If there ever was some way to feed into a machine the requirements for the perfect leader of CENTCOM — the character traits, the attributes, the experiences, the knowledge and the personality that would be ideal — that machine would spit out Erik Kurilla," Milley said in 2022, according to the Defense Department. "Erik's got vast experience in combat (and) on staffs.
"He's a visionary, he's a thinker and he's a doer," Milley said. "He understands both the physical and human terrain and is able to identify root causes of problems and develop systems. He's not at all a linear thinker. He's actually a very gifted problem-solver."
Retired Marine Corps Gen. Frank McKenzie, Kurilla's CENTCOM predecessor, voiced similar sentiments.
"I can't think of anybody better qualified to lead CENTCOM's next chapter than Erik Kurilla," McKenzie said in 2022, according to the Pentagon. "He's no stranger to the CENTCOM (area of operations). He's no stranger to the headquarters."
Notable figures who've previously filled the job leading CENTCOM include former defense secretaries, retired Gen. Jim Mattis, who served during Trump's first term, and retired Gen. Lloyd Austin, who served during former President Joe Biden's administration.
Fox News Digital reached out to CENTCOM, the Department of Defense, McKenzie and Milley for comment and did not get a response by the time of publication.
The region is familiar territory for Kurilla. The general spent a decade between 2004 and 2014 overseeing conventional and special operations forces during consecutive tours in the Middle East that fell under the CENTCOM purview.
Additionally, Kurilla has served in key CENTCOM staff and leadership positions, including serving as the command's chief of staff from August 2018 to September 2019. Prior to leading CENTCOM, the general also commanded the 2nd Ranger Battalion, the 75th Ranger Regiment, the 82nd Airborne Division and the XVIII Airborne Corps, according to his official bio.
In addition to deploying to Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Inherent Resolve, he deployed to Afghanistan with Operation Enduring Freedom. Other awards he's earned include the Combat Infantryman Badge, awarded to Army infantry or special forces officers who've encountered active ground combat.
Kurilla, who the Senate confirmed to lead CENTCOM in February 2022 and will exit the role later in 2025, told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee June 10 that, since October 2023, when Hamas first attacked Israel, American service members have faced increased threats in the region.
Specifically, he said, U.S. troops have come under direct fire by nearly 400 unmanned aerial systems, 350 rockets, 50 ballistic missiles and 30 cruise missiles launched by Iranian-backed groups.
He said CENTCOM has encountered the "most highly kinetic period than at any other time in the past decade."
"We have been at the brink of regional war several times with the first state-on-state attacks between Iran and Israel in their history," Kurilla told lawmakers. "In the Red Sea, Houthi attempts to kill Americans operating in the Red Sea necessitated an aggressive response to protect our sailors and mariners and restore freedom of navigation. This is while Tehran is continuing to progress towards a nuclear weapons program — threatening catastrophic ramifications across the region and beyond."
As a result, Kurilla said CENTCOM is prepared to use military force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state. Kurilla said he has provided Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth a host of options to employ to eliminate the threat of a nuclear Iran.
Since Kurilla's testimony, tensions have escalated even further in the Middle East after Israel kicked off massive airstrikes against Iran's nuclear sites that Israel claims have killed several high-ranking military leaders. Likewise, Iran also launched strikes against Israel as the two ramp up military campaigns against one another.
Trump is still navigating whether the U.S. will conduct direct strikes against Iran. Trump told reporters he may order strikes targeting Iranian nuclear sites and that the "next week is going to be very big."
"Yes, I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do," Trump said. "I can tell you this, that Iran's got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate."

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
14 minutes ago
- New York Post
Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good
MAGA celebrity Charlie Kirk, attempting to balance support for the administration and appeal to online isolationists, maintains that the 'regime change war machine in DC' is pushing President Donald Trump into 'an all-out blitz on Iran.' He's not alone. The question is, what does 'regime change war' mean in simple language? Does it mean, as 'non-interventionists' suggest, invading Iran and imposing American democracy on its people? Because, if so, there's virtually no one pushing for that. And I only add 'virtually' in case I somehow missed a person of consequence, though it is highly unlikely. Trump, from all indications, is using the threat of the US joining the war to push Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into surrender. Though taking out Iran's nuclear program would end the war quicker. Or does opposing 'regime change' mean actively thwarting the Iranian opposition from overthrowing the fundamentalists who took power via a violent revolution in 1979? Does it mean ensuring that Khamenei survives, because a resulting messy post-war fight for power is worse? It seems the latter. Kirk says, 'There is a vast difference between a popular revolution and foreign-imposed, abrupt, violent regime change.' Surely, he doesn't believe the mullahs will gradually propose liberal reforms for the people and become peaceful neighbors on their own? If Iranians revolt, it's because of the violence now being imposed on the regime. The ideological overcorrection due to the failures of Iraq's rebuild now has non-interventionists accusing anyone who proposes that it's better if anti-American dictatorships fall of being 'neocons,' perhaps the most useless phrase in our political lexicon. Forget for a moment that Iran has been an enemy of the United States for 45 years. Not an existential threat, no, but a deadly one, nonetheless. The non-interventionist is not bothered by the Islamic Republic's murder of American citizens, or its crusade for nuclear weapons — until Khamenei drops Revolutionary Guard paratroopers into San Diego, they don't think it's any of our business. Because of this overcorrection, non-interventionists, both left and right, simply can't fathom that exertion of American power could ever be a good thing. They now create revisionist histories blaming the United States for virtually all the world's ills. 'It was Britain, and (funded by) the United States that overthrew a democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossedegh in 1953 by using hired mobs in a coup that lead [sic] to the installation of the Shah Pahlavi's 27 year reign of authoritarianism and human rights abuses,' wrote Trump-supporting comedian Rob Schneider in a viral post. 'All in the name of Iranian Oil.' 'Remember,' Kirk told his followers, 'Iran is partially controlled by mullahs today because we designed regime change to put the shah back in power.' Boy, I wish people would stay off Wikipedia for a while, because this fantasy, spread by blame-America leftists for decades, is now being picked up by the right. The notion that Iran would have been a thriving democracy in 1954 had the US not gotten involved — and our involvement is way overstated — is more ridiculous than blaming us for the 1979 revolution nearly 30 years later. It is far more likely Iran would have emerged as a Soviet client state, destined to fall anyway when fundamentalists swept the Islamic world in the 1970s. Realpolitik is ugly. Non-interventionists love to harp on the deadly byproducts of our intrusions into world affairs — and there have been many — without ever grappling with the counterfactual outcome. For instance, the contention that 'regime change' never works is incredibly simplistic. Regime change was a success in Germany and Japan. And I bet the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovenians, Estonians and many others were all on board for regime change, as well. None of that happens without US intervention in conflicts, cold and hot, around the world. People will rightly point out that Europe is not the Middle East. In that regard, Iran is not Iraq or Syria. Schneider contends that '90 million people will fight for their survival again,' as they did in Iraq. Sure, some Iranians might fight to preserve the brutal Islamic regime. Many would not. The real fear should be that a civil war would break out if Iran's regime collapses. There are numerous minorities in Iran, but Persian national consciousness goes back to antiquity. If the mullahs fall, a majority of Iranians may turn out to fight for a better life free of needless conflicts with the West. It may go south. It may not. I have no idea how that turns out, and neither do you. Except for one thing: Whoever wins won't have nuclear weapons. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.


CNN
20 minutes ago
- CNN
How Tucker Carlson went from war hawk to skeptic
CNN's Donie O'Sullivan explores the transformation of Tucker Carlson, from one-time CNN host advocating for the Iraq War to his current status as an influential MAGA podcaster criticizing possible US involvement in Israel's conflict with Iran.


Fox News
23 minutes ago
- Fox News
There should be ‘no doubt' Trump could turn Iran's facilities into nuclear dust, says Army Special Forces veteran
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Former President Biden attends Juneteenth event at Reedy Chapel Church in Texas