The US’ response to the drone attack in Jordan that killed and wounded US service members on Sunday is likely to be more powerful than previous American retaliatory strikes in Iraq and Syria, officials told CNN, though the Pentagon and White House are being careful not to telegraph the administration’s plans.
President Joe Biden is under increasing pressure to respond in a way that stops these attacks for good. Iran-backed militants have targeted US military facilities in Iraq and Syria over 160 times since October, and several Republican lawmakers have called for the US to hit inside Iran directly to send a clear message.
But the biggest challenge now for the Biden administration is how to respond to the drone strike – the deadliest attack on US forces in the region since the bombing at Abbey Gate killed 13 US service members in the closing days of the Afghanistan withdrawal – without sparking a regional war.
The funny thing is that here Biden’s clear and very reasonable desire not to start a war appears to be working against him. Iran is willing to antagonize the USA in order to gain regional influence because it knows that the USA is not looking for a fight, but of course it’s not really possible to deliberately elect a leader who convincingly appears to be warlike without actually being so.
Another problem is that Iran may not actually have the ability to order its proxies to stop. The groups it supports appear to genuinely believe in their stated goals; Iran has organized, trained, and armed them in order to expand its influence but they’re not actually fighting for Iran. It has some degree of control over them but they have the motivation and the means to keep fighting even if their support is cut off.
Not stopping Israel and sending them more aid will cause escalation.
The US have 0 reason to have a base there considering they fake reasons to be in Iraq in the first place.
These are mental gemnastics to start a war. If you don’t want a war then they should leave.
Events outside the borders of the USA will still affect the USA, and there’s no amount of influence the USA can cede to Iran that will satisfy them. Containment is necessary and less difficult now than it would be later. It would have been even less difficult before the USA squandered so much of its power and influence in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that fact doesn’t mean that the correct future policy regarding the region should be a very passive one.
As an Iranian person if the government says look what the USA doing to your brothers and family in Iraq, Syria, Palestine. Look at what they do to Palestinians in west bank with continuous colonization and in Gaza suppotred by the USA. This will definitely lead to more radicalized people who want them out.
Now if the USA left the region. What the Iranian will say to their people? Lets fight USA ? They will be asking why we need to fight them ? In fact most likely they will be overthrowing the current government and end up in a new revolution.
I am not sure what you mean by your last sentence. Iraq after Sadam has more Iranian influence thay before. And Afghanistan might also have more influence from Iran than before.
Regarding Iraq, definitely more Iranian influence after the US attacked, regarding Afghanistan, it’s more Pakistan I feel and even they don’t control them.
Finally, before this whole mess, there were some overtures to pulling out the troops out of the region and apparently proper talks had begun
That’s been the argument for 45 years. “Gotta have bases over there. Gotta make sure we can manipulate these countries, don’t want them doing something we don’t like.”
What has it gotten us? Are we in a better position now? Are the people who live there in a better position?
Better than if countries in middle east were blowing up whatever they wanted? Absolutely.
Kuwait exists as a country because the west is in the Middle East. Global markets depend on the waterways around the middle east being clear and oil from the middle east pumping.
So we can claim one tiny country 34 years ago as a victory. Meanwhile, the rest of the middle east has turned into a disaster compared to what it was in the 60s. That’s all due to American/western meddling for the last half century. These countries are in a position of “blowing up whatever they want” because of the US.
Creating problems, thn kinda sorta halfway fixing them is not a sustainable strategy.
Yes and no. A policy of overwhelming force is more effective if your metric is a binary peace/no peace. However, when it fails, it fails catastrophically, and you find yourself in a war that you do not think was anywhere near worth starting.
Both the US and Iran are being very restrained at the moment, and no one wins if that changes to both sides going all out. In fact, from what I can tell, both sides are being dragged into this conflict against their will.
Plus, the US has other concerns. There is still a war going on in Ukraine, where, as far as I can tell, US support is much more vital to US security interests. And there is the evergreen spectre of a war in Taiwan that the US needs to maintain posture on.