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.

    • bluGill@kbin.social
      53·
      11 months ago

      That is one hypothesis. While it sounds reasonable, we don’t actually know if it would work. We also have no clue how to solve the underlying conflicts. (Other than simplistic things like turning the entire middle east to glass - killing many innocent people in the process).

      • gapbetweenus@feddit.deEnglish
        6·
        11 months ago

        we don’t actually know if it would work.

        We could try, because we know that the alternatives don’t work for sure.

        We also have no clue how to solve the underlying conflicts.

        I would say that the bigger problem is that people in power don’t actually want to solve the conflicts at all.

        • bluGill@kbin.social
          13·
          11 months ago

          Try which? I’ve seen many ideas, we cannot try them all. Some of the ideas have been tried as well, but the proposers don’t have enough history to know that or the results. Most of them will take decades to implement. This isn’t an easy problem.

            • bluGill@kbin.social
              13·
              11 months ago

              Do you also include civilians who are killed by someone else if we don’t take action? While “we” can do better about killing civilians, whoever “we” is, there is a “someone else” who will kill civilians as well - maybe a different group of civilians, but they will themselves do some killing.