The killing of three U.S. troops and wounding of dozens more on Sunday by Iran-backed militants is piling political pressure on President Joe Biden to deal a blow directly against Iran, a move he's been reluctant to do out of fear of igniting a broader war. Biden's response options could range anywhere from targeting Iranian forces outside to even inside Iran, or opting for a more cautious retaliatory attack solely against the Iran-backed militants responsible, experts say. American forces in the Middle East have been attacked more than 150 times by Iran-backed forces in Iraq, Syria, Jordan and off the coast of Yemen since the Israel-Hamas war erupted in October.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The killing of three U.S. troops and wounding of dozens more on Sunday by Iran-backed militants is piling political pressure on President Joe Biden to deal a blow directly against Iran, a move he’s been reluctant to do out of fear of igniting a broader war.

Biden’s response options could range anywhere from targeting Iranian forces outside to even inside Iran, or opting for a more cautious retaliatory attack solely against the Iran-backed militants responsible, experts say.

American forces in the Middle East have been attacked more than 150 times by Iran-backed forces in Iraq, Syria, Jordan and off the coast of Yemen since the Israel-Hamas war erupted in October.

But until Sunday’s attack on a remote outpost known as Tower 22 near Jordan’s northeastern border with Syria, the strikes had not killed U.S. troops nor wounded so many. That allowed Biden the political space to mete out U.S. retaliation, inflicting costs on Iran-backed forces without risking a direct war with Tehran.

  • @[email protected]English
    1•10 months ago

    No, that isn’t what I said. I said Hamas ignited the current disaster - which is one step in a whole series of disastrous moves by both the State of Israel and Hamas.

    But to address your point of what are the Palestinians to do? There isn’t a nice clean answer for that because the burden of responsibility lies on both sides - moreso on the side with the greater power (so, Israel).

    But terrorism isn’t helpful when it leads to the genocide of your people.

    If Hamas hadn’t done October 7th, then a lot more innocent Israelis, Palestinians, and Gazans would still be alive today.

    If you’re trying to suggest that it’s a means to an end… Well first of all, the ends do not justify the means. Second of all - what end exactly has Hamas helped achieve here?

    • NoneOfUrBusiness
      0•10 months ago

      No, that isn’t what I said. I said Hamas ignited the current disaster - which is one step in a whole series of disastrous moves by both the State of Israel and Hamas.

      Yes, but like I just said that logic can be extended to any action by Hamas that invites Israeli response, which is most of them.

      But terrorism isn’t helpful when it leads to the genocide of your people.

      Palestinians are the victims of genocide either way at the pre-Oct 7th rate. Israel was waiting for an excuse to do something like this.

      If you’re trying to suggest that it’s a means to an end… Well first of all, the ends do not justify the means.

      This logic doesn’t apply to the concept of war. The whole idea of war is that there’s some goal that one or both sides decides is worth killing people for. There are some things the world has agreed (while crossing their fingers behind their backs) can’t be done no matter your cause, but war has always been about the ends justifying the means.

      Second of all - what end exactly has Hamas helped achieve here?

      Israel is rapidly losing international support. This is having effects even now, but it’ll be even more apparent as older generations die off. And they stopped Saudi naturalization.