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.
Political pressure builds on Biden to strike Iran after US deaths
Defence Contractor Company Shareholder Pressure Builds on Biden to Strike Iran
Sorted that headline for ya
I’m just glad to have such a recent and relevant example of how Biden doesn’t bow to pressure from voters.
I hate US politics
Biden could have stopped this conflict and got all the hostages released back in October if he temporarily withheld arms from Bibi. But he’d rather infantilize Israel with his bear hug policy. He can’t fathom it’s a government of ultra right individuals assembled to protect Bibi from corruption charges.
Citation needed. Bibi wasn’t begging for more arms. He had plenty. Granted this was 100% an unforced catastrophe on Biden’s part. But Biden couldn’t have stopped shit. Ask yourself why the house and senate aren’t up in arms over this. Or where your concern was the last 15 years where Israel quietly slaughtered far more Palestinians without media attention. Under multiple administrations. Almost like it’s not a Biden problem. But a general problem.
Warmonger Bibi doesn’t care about tens of billions in military aid to a country of less than 10 million? Get the fuck out of here.
Oh, he cares. He just doesn’t care if it comes from the US, or China, or Russia. No aid means no influence.
What’s going on in Gaza is what Bibi lives for, and it’s what his base elected him to do. He’d send the IDF in with clubs and slingshots of that were the only option.
What? Read all the thread. Of course he cares. Israel gets $1000s per person with these big US aid packages and that post I replied to tried to argue that doesn’t matter.
Bibi was elected as Mr. Security and Israelis are pissed because he allowed the biggest terror attack under his watch. I’m not saying Israel will fundamentally change, but it’s very normal for voters to dump ineffective leaders and Bibi is bad for the security of Israel.
Nice strawman. Can’t address what was said I see.
Senator Holden Bloodfeast (118)
So 10k (random low number) deaths for 3 US military personel who signed up for such a possibility? Capitalists don’t seem to be able to count when their opponent isn’t white skinned.
Edit: specifying that I am predicting the deaths if U.S was to bomb iran or some shit.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the point of a retaliatory military strike. The tit for tat bean counting with human lives isn’t even a large part of the calculus ultimately.
Not retaliating is seen as a sign of weakness which would serve to undermine NATO’s military stance of absolute first strike authority at anytime for any reason. Allowing Iran to attack US troops without a military response is relinquishing, in some small way, the US backed monopoly on violence. Right, wrong, or indifferent that is simply not something that will be allowed to happen.
Or how to keep global terrorism with a never ending supply of angry young people.
Fueling adversaries is good for the military sector.
We could give that whole thing a catchy name, like military industrial complex or something.
Your correct that military action does inflame people. But this action is trying to stop the people sponsoring the terrorist.
A better approach would be to stop sponsoring Israel’s genocidal war on Palestine. This would decrease tensions and allow diplomatic options to become viable.
Israel had a cease fire, which appears to have been motivated by the US pausing delivery of weapons to Israel. As soon as the weapons were delivered they went right back at it. So the US does have considerable influence.
The people doing these attacks in Yemen claim they are trying to disrupt Israel and it’s war on Gaza. Take away their moral cover and their support will weaken. They’ll be seen as terrorists if they don’t stop and will be politically easier to attack and politically harder to support.
But this action is trying to stop the people sponsoring the terrorist.
And how did it work out so far? Terrorism is the result of dis-balance of power which makes terrorism the only viable method of resistance. You can’t solve terrorism with war. I like how you kind of managed to understand that in the case of Palestine/Israel conflict, but somehow stopped thinking right after that.
You mean like how America got owned in Afghanistan?
The attack didn’t even get claimed by Iran but by Iraq. No matter how much Genocide Joe just blames Iran for everything it doesn’t magically make it true.
And this is all Israel fault. Gotta remember it when things start to escalate seriously.
Now I’m no supporter of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, but your statement is way too reductive.
The current disaster in Gaza was ignited by Hamas on October 7th, no doubt at the encouragement of Iran. And yes, Israel definitely bears a significant amount of responsibility for creating the tinder box that October 7th sparked, and also has certainly fanned the flames with enthusiasm.
But responsibility for the escalation and continuation of the situation rests also on Iran, on Hamas and the Houthis, and also to a lesser degree on the US and other Western allies that enable Israel.
Talk about reductive.
The October 7 invasion of Israel by Hamas was also a result of 75 years of illegal occupation of Palestine by Israel.
I’m sorry, I don’t follow what you’re trying to convey here.
That there is an even bigger picture than in my comment? Well, yes, of course. The Israel-Palestine situation is a hundred year old mess.
But how was my comment reductive as well? I didn’t lay the blame squarely at the feet of any one party, which is far closer to the truth than saying “It’s all Israel’s fault.”
And if you take contention with me being nuanced, please consider that by doing so you don’t actually do any favours to the conversation and therefore a peaceful resolution that is as fair as can possibly be achieved.
So, if it helps you come back to the table, please know that I absolutely think what Israel is doing is appalling and they have an obscene power disparity over the Palestinian people and are abusing that wholesale - when they could use it to create peace.
It’s about as illegal as the US’s occupation of America.
By that logic, the solution to the conflict is a federation in which all citizen subjects have representative power 👹
Legally speaking, sure, but we haven’t killed natives to expand territory in a while. And they fought back when we did.
Unrelated, but my policy would be to give texas back to Mexico, the west coast to the natives, and accelerate global warming and hope Florida just sinks.
… but we haven’t killed natives to expand territory in a while.
Sure you have. When funding is kept to the lowest levels possible, and people die as a result of it, it’s the same thing.
Just 'cause it takes longer than a bullet doesn’t change the outcome.
So any action from Hamas (or Palestinian resistance in general) gets hit back with Israeli retaliation. Does that mean they should just not do anything and hope daddy Israel gives them a mile of land after a century?
Unconditional surrender worked out pretty well for Japan and Germany. Palestine keeps choosing violence, losing more and more because of it, and they’re all out of ideas.
You always go on about this, but just for anyone who actually buys this Germany and Japan are completely different situations. More correct comparisons would be North Ireland during the Troubles or Apartheid South America, or the civil rights movement in America. Something tells me unconditional surrender wouldn’t have helped in these situations.
Palestine is a separate nation than Israel. I suppose the troubles is the most comparable of all of these examples, but the methods Palestinians use make even Sinn Fein distance themselves from them.
My point is that choosing violence didn’t work for Palestine, they lose more and more every time they try it, yet polling shows most still want intifada, most don’t want a two-state solution, or a one state solution where Jews have equal rights. Around 3/4 approve of October 7th and Hamas.
Well, with this sort of hard line approach, a hard line response is unsurprising. Perhaps it’s time to try something new.
The reason the civil rights movement was successful is because they embraced pacifism. Where is the Palestinian MLK or Gandhi?
My point is that choosing violence didn’t work for Palestine, they lose more and more every time they try it, yet polling shows most still want intifada, most don’t want a two-state solution, or a one state solution where Jews have equal rights.
Violence is at least producing results (declining international support for Israel). Peace (the Oslo accords) did nothing except give us the dysfunctional PA and ever-increasing numbers of settlements. Remember the Great March of Return where nothing happened except Palestinians getting shot by laughing IDF snipers? You can’t have peace with an oppressor that rejects your existence.
the methods Palestinians use make even Sinn Fein distance themselves from them.
Yes but no. The IRA also relied a lot on car bombing and other blatant terror actions, because nothing else worked. That’s the case in Palestine, and in settler colonialist societies in general; when you outnumber the natives (or at least have numerical parity with them), there’s no reason to listen to their demands since they have no leverage. That’s how you get violence; it’s a way to produce leverage out of nothing.
The civil rights act was only passed after the riots that came after MLK’s death. There was very much violence involved, though that violence would’ve been impossible without the base MLK built.
Where is the Palestinian MLK or Gandhi?
Those two lived in completely different situations. Also they weren’t peaceful; they were nonviolent. On the subject of MLK, where are the Israeli youth who are going to march with said Palestinian MLK? Where’s the unfair but at least functional justice system they can use to fight against Apartheid? And that’s not to mention how Israel’s left wing basically rolled over and died in the 80s. The base that MLK used in America simply doesn’t exist in Israel. Palestine is under a military occupation; they get tried by military courts and can be shot by Israeli soldiers and civilians with impunity. That’s not a situation where you can peacefully resist; the closest anybody got to that was the first Intifada, and look how that turned out.
In Gandhi’s case, he correctly observed that the British occupation of India was impossible without the cooperation of Indians, so he called on Indians to completely boycott the occupation government and let it collapse. Palestine is different; Israel can (and is in the case of Gaza) maintain their occupation with exactly 0 Palestinian cooperation. Palestine is a cage with people locked inside by Israeli people with guns, and every other day the cage gets just a little smaller. There’s very little you can do in that situation except violent resistance. This is why I prefer the comparison with the Troubles; it gets most accurately the situation Palestine is in across, and why “well they should just negotiate peacefully” doesn’t work.
I believe their cause would be a lot more sympathetic if they had stuck to military targets and not simply murdered, raped, kidnapped, tortured, and mutilated israeli civilians, employed suicide bombings, or blindly fired rockets into population centers. For me, any claims of Palestinean righteousness and legitimate resistance evaporated when I watched October 7th footage. I simply cannot see such atrocities as a righteous war for liberation.
I’m… really not sure what point you’re trying to make to me here, sorry.
Unless you’re trying to strawman me, in which case - why?
You said the escalation of the situation is the fault of Hamas. But the thing is, if Hamas (and Palestinian resistance in general) don’t do anything they’ll never get out of their situation. And anything they do can be presented as an escalation.
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?
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.
funny how you misspelled Hamas. Also Iran is just as evil as Russia or North Korea…I doubt that much is lost without their current leadership.
Iran, Russia, North Korea and Israel. Forgot one in the bunch my dear. That leadeeship too must go.
