U.S. retaliatory strikes start in Iraq and Syria in response to Jordan drone attack
Category: News & Politics
Via: perrie-halpern • 9 months ago • 51 commentsBy: Dan De Luce, Mosheh Gains and Daniel Arkin
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON — The United States launched attacks Friday against 85 sites in Iraq and Syria used by Iranian forces and Iran-backed militants, its first retaliatory strikes for the killing of three American soldiers in Jordan last weekend, U.S. officials said.
U.S. military forces struck targets at seven facilities tied to attacks on U.S. personnel in the region, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters. U.S. Central Command said the facilities included command and control operations, intelligence centers, rockets and missiles, and drone storage sites.
"Our response began today. It will continue at times and places of our choosing," President Joe Biden said in a statement. "The United States does not seek conflict in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world. But let all those who might seek to do us harm know this: If you harm an American, we will respond."
The military action is a significant escalation in Washington's bid to deter the growing threat from Iran-backed groups across the Middle East — a step fraught with risk abroad and at home, as Biden seeks to prevent the Israel-Hamas war from spiraling into a wider conflict while working to secure his re-election.
The Biden administration had made clear that the U.S. would take military action after the drone attack by Iran-backed militants at a remote U.S. base in Jordan, in which more than 40 others were wounded. Biden attended the dignified return of the three slain U.S. soldiers at Dover Air Force Base earlier Friday.
Syrian state television reported that the strikes killed and wounded people, but it did not specify an exact number of casualties.
Kirby said the U.S. did not know how many militants were killed or wounded, but said the targets were selected to avoid civilian casualties.
The targets were "based on a clear, irrefutable evidence they were connected to attacks on U.S personnel in the region," he said.
The U.S. conducted the strikes knowing that the facilities are used by Iranian-backed militia personnel and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, Lt. Gen. Douglas A. Sims II told reporters.
"We made these strikes tonight with an idea that there would likely be casualties associated with people inside those facilities," he said.
The U.S. used more than 125 munitions on the strikes, Sims said. He said all of them were precision munitions.
The Iraqi army condemned the U.S. airstrikes against Iran-backed militias in Iraqi border areas, calling the air assault a "violation of Iraqi sovereignty" and "a threat that will drag Iraq and the region into unforeseen consequences."
Yahya Rasool Abdullah, a spokesman for the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi Armed Forces, asserted that the "strikes come at a time when Iraq is striving to ensure the stability of the region."
Kirby, the National Security Council spokesman, told reporters that the U.S. informed the Iraqi government about the strikes before they were launched.
Before the strikes, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had promised a "multitier response" and officials told NBC News that Biden settled on a plan expected to unfold over multiple days, possibly weeks.
Biden seeks to deter widening conflict
Even as Biden and his deputies vowed to retaliate, they have added the caveat that Washington does not seek a war with Iran or a wider conflict in the region, a sentiment that was reiterated in the president's statement on Friday. Their calibrated statements appeared to indicate that it was unlikely the reprisal strikes would hit targets inside Iran itself.
"We will continue to work to avoid a wider conflict in a region, but we will take all necessary actions to defend the United States, our interests and our people," Austin told reporters at a Pentagon news conference Thursday.
Austin repeated much of that statement on Friday after the strikes, adding in part that "the president and I will not tolerate attacks on American forces."
Iran has denied involvement in the drone attack and said that it, too, does not seek a direct confrontation with the U.S.
After previous attacks by Tehran-backed groups in Iraq and Syria that wounded but did not kill some American troops, Biden ordered airstrikes that targeted the militants' weapons depots and other sites. But the pace of rocket and drone attacks dramatically increased after the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel and the subsequent Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip.
There have been more than 160 attacks on U.S. forces by Iran-backed groups since Oct. 7, according to the Pentagon.
Meanwhile, Houthi forces in Yemen have attacked commercial ships in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden with drones and missiles, vowing to continue until Israel halts its military campaign in Gaza.
U.S. Navy warships have shot down dozens of the Houthi drones and missiles, but some have hit commercial vessels, prompting a slew of major shipping companies to shift cargo onto other, longer routes. In recent weeks, the U.S. military also carried out strikes against Houthi forces in Yemen, hitting launch sites and command centers.
It's unclear if the Biden administration will choose to go after Iranian ships suspected of assisting the Houthis to find targets with electronic intelligence.
The last time the U.S. military targeted an Iranian ship was in 1988, when the Navy launched retaliatory attacks in the Persian Gulf after an American vessel was hit by a mine planted by Iran.
Tehran has denied direct involvement in the Jordan incident but has warned that it will respond to any threat from the U.S.
"We will not start any war, but if anyone wants to bully us, they will receive a strong response," Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi said in a televised speech Friday.
"We hear threats coming from American officials, we tell them that they have already tested us and we now know one another, no threat will be left unanswered," the chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Hossein Salami, said Wednesday.
Tags
Who is online
438 visitors
Those strikes should have been made immediately after the attack on a US base which killed 3 US service members a week ago. The Iranian proxy forces had more than enough time to pack up and move whatever was important to them out of harm's way. I'm sure that all the Iranian officers who aid these groups are safely back in Iran and I am sure that Iran is not going to be hit.
The most important line in the article was the last sentence.
Should have? But of course, ain't nothin' like next day revenge to satiate Monday morning Generalissimo blood lust ; it's a must of MAGA proportions.
In the meantime, back to Nabokov's Lolita ... by far and away the best writing I've read since Conrad's Lord Jim.
Preferred the movies.
This is bigger than just trying to deter Iranian proxies, Muslim extremists in North Africa and Lil' Kim in North Korea are watching and calculating.
With the region, Iran aims to make the US leave and then further dominate the area. This is why Saudi wants a US Security Pact as part of the deal with Israel.
The Saudi's always want something. They wanted our fighter jets, then one of their pilot trainees committed a mass shooting at our training facility in FLA. They still got the jets! A pact with any of the mid-east countries isn't worth the paper it's written on, and that includes Israel! This current situation in the middle-east is just another run of the mill religious war. Two words that don't belong in the same sentence. Medieval people, medieval religions, with modern weapons. What could possibly go wrong?
Doesn't everyone?
President Biden and his administration is handling this situation exactly as they should, by the book and with the best military advice available...
Give Him A Break!
I heard the same tripe during the Afghanistan withdrawal, too.
And who the hell negotiated that shitty withdrawal? TRUMP!!
Yeah, whatabout, whatabout and whatabout? We get it...
And who the hell executed that shitty withdrawal? BIDEN!!
And who exactly was in charge when we withdrew?
Helpful hint:
NOT TRUMP.
Tripe is tripe, if you can factually disprove my post, let's see it instead of ignoring what was written.
It’s amazing how fucking funny this place is sometimes.
biden ended stay in Mexico
rejoined the Paris climate accord after Trump ended it
Ended keystone after Trump signed the agreement.
But there is always some poster who will tell you he had to follow trumps plan for withdrawal but can’t explain why or if he had to follow it, why he didn’t have to honor the May date? Why did he give the Taliban 4 months to prepare for the killing of Americans?
Bound by that shitty agreement!
If he was bound by that agreement why didn’t he honor the May 1st date?
So, with the "best military advice available" the Biden administration couldn't develop a plan that wouldn't be the shitshow it was?
Perhaps you can explain why Trump made that shitty agreement!?
my question exactly.
I think if it makes Biden look bad. then Trump did it all and Biden was an ignorant bystander.
But if it would have made Biden look hood, we would have gotten some Corn Pop like stories of Joe's heroism.
So you wanted to stay in Afghanistan forever?
You are claiming Biden had th follow it, why did he change the date?
You must not have available for consultation, what a shame, there would be peace in the middle-east!
Yep, that dark day in August happened on Joe Biden's watch and there is no denying, deflecting or getting around it by this administration that will change that. The thinking American public knows that. The blood of the 13 brave souls that lost their lives that day is solely on Joe Biden's hands!
Hell, I didn't want to be in the middle-east at all. Remember that knuckle-head "W" Bush and his lies about "weapons of mass-destruction".
There will always be those in denial.
Don’t deflect, Biden didn’t follow any agreement other than his own.
I take it your answer is no.
Exactly, too many believers:
Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
-- President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998
I don't remember Clinton signing any treaties that Bush felt compelled to follow.
In fact March 20, 2003 was two years into the GWB Administration.
So in four years we had unconfirmed lies that Hussein himself had started
and tragically Coin Powells UN speech was justification for another failure in spreading democracy
I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Rep. Pelosi, Oct. 10, 2002
Why do you keep avoiding Quoting President Bush?
No need, those of us of age remember what he said. But some here forget what others said:
"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
-- State Senator Obama, Oct. 2, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Clinton, Oct 10, 2002
So Bush and Powell were sold a bill of goods by the Dems'?
Got it. /s
President Clinton also called Iraq "a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals, who travel the world among us unnoticed."
Amazing how Governor Bush and a Retired Colin Powell duped him into claiming that. Bush must truly be the cleverest President we ever had.
Yeah, but then Iraq magically got rid of all the weapons and refused to sponsor terrorism, don't ya know!
No, just both sides were fooled:
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Never going to happen no matter when or what he does, centrists are now considered to be far-left extremists.
No, Dems consider them secret Repubs,
There are former, alas not many, 'Repubs'. 'Secret' repubs are a herd of MAGA-come-lately RINOs.
Vast herds of angry RINOS cannot be good for MAGAS...
Not many centrist Dems either, a dying breed all around.
A huge number of centrist Dems were ultimately driven out by the majority progressive leftist liberals and became conservative leaning Republicans or Independents. MAGA had pretty much zero to do with it.
Leave the old man alone and stop making him cry!!!
President Biden and his administration is handling this situation exactly as they should, by the book and with the best military advice available...
A couple of questions
1. Which book is that?
2. That military advice is from the SecDef that wanders off for a few days without telling anyone
Wanders off for a few days without telling anyone?
I see you make stuff up. Not humorous. Why not try the truth?
I agree. The truth is it was closer to a week
It's hard to keep up with the news.
So he didn't "wander off" he was admitted to a military medical institution.
Got it /s
See comment 3.4.5
I see, we all except for you, seemed to know that he didn't let the CiC know or his Deputy know where he was and perhaps not in a position to make decisions. I'll call that "wandering off" from his responsibility.
Even when he gets on national television and ADMITS he handled the whole thing poorly, some are STILL trying to defend him.
Shades of what some liberals did when the IRS ADMITTED to targeting conservative groups.
"Nuh-uh" became the mantra.