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.
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.
Nobody knows how to stop terrorism. There are a lot of hypothesis. However they are either untested in the real world, or they have failed.
You need to solve the underlying conflicts?
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).
We could try, because we know that the alternatives don’t work for sure.
I would say that the bigger problem is that people in power don’t actually want to solve the conflicts at all.
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.
Try no to kill thousands of civilians in response.
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.
I’m talking about disproportional response to terrorism - I thought it was pretty clear.