On Jan. 28, a drone strike on a U.S. military base in Jordan killed three Americans and wounded 34 others. Biden was quick to voice his retaliatory intent, blaming an Iranian-backed militia based out of Syria and Iraq. His retaliation did indeed arrive last Friday night after bombing more than 85 targets using an aircraft that departed from Texas.
There are two important dimensions of this escalation in the conflicts taking place in the Middle East. The first pertains to the rapidly increasing involvement of Iran and the United States since Israel decided to invade Gaza. And secondly, the domestic politics involved, especially concerning the upcoming presidential election between Biden and Trump.
The most worrying of the two dimensions is how rapidly conflict in the Middle East is expanding. It is somewhat of a bewildering experience trying to wrap one’s head around all of the conflicts taking place.
Israel is fighting on three fronts. The most notable is the one taking place in Gaza, but Hezbollah has increased its attacks on Israel’s northern border with Lebanon while Israel also fights a shadow war against Iran in Syria.
The U.S., on the other hand, has been consistently attacking Houthi militia groups in Yemen for their attacks on cargo ships in one of the world’s most important trading routes. Biden’s retaliatory strikes on Friday opens up another front for the U.S. with the potential for new actors to get involved increasing as well.
To be clear, the biggest actor of concern is Iran. All of the militia groups of Israel, the U.S. and their allies are targeting are supported by Iran. Whether that be sending personnel for training purposes or the supply of arms, Iran’s presence in these conflicts is far from minimal.
What we still have yet to witness is direct conflict between Iran and the United States, but the escalatory strikes that took place on Friday greatly increase the chances of that happening. While no Iranian officials or personnel were killed in the attacks, it is still unclear how Iran will respond. Biden intentionally focused on targets that wouldn’t force Iran’s hand, but if the tit-for-tat trend continues, pessimism would further envelope Iran’s potential degree of involvement.
All of these decisions on Biden’s part are further complicated by the second dimension of this development in the Middle East. It is an election year, and the death of three Americans has not helped the Republican perception of him.
Shortly after the attack that killed the Americans, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson was quick to voice the necessity of holding “every single malignant actor responsible.” One of his colleagues, Republican congressman and chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee Michael McCaul stated that the White House has failed in its foreign policy objectives.
The responses occurred before Biden’s bombardments last Friday, and it is clear that the retaliatory strikes in Syria and Iraq were not enough. Mike Johnson took to X—previously known as Twitter—again to refer to the billions of dollars spent in the Middle East since October before lambasting the excessive “public handwriting and excessive signaling.” He ended with a call for Biden’s administration to admit “that its strategy of appeasing Iran has failed.”
“To protect peace, we must project strength,” was Johnson’s sign-off on his official remark last Friday. There are several contradictions in his response that are worth noting. For one, the fiscal critique of Biden’s Middle East policy is a result of military action, and to spend less capital in the Middle East, projecting less strength would be necessary.
Secondly, projecting strength, which in the context of his comments has to do with military action, is the exact opposite of peace. While some might argue in favor of this logic, dropping bombs on facilities kills people, and its hard to find peace in such an outcome. And it is Biden’s projection of strength, and his support of Israel’s violent projection of strength, that has caused him to lose support among Democrats as well.
This point about the desires of Democrats is important. Democrats’ support for Biden has recently experienced a single-digit increase, but this is only because of the administration’s voicing for Israel to decrease civilian casualties in Gaza. While the public statement had no obvious strings attached to Israel, it is a step in the right direction.
Both of the dimensions discussed about Biden’s escalation in the Middle East center around Israel’s indiscriminate killing of Gazans. Biden’s sole foreign policy objective should be to stop what Israel is doing in order to protect the lives of the innocent civilians of Gaza.
For one, it would ease relations with Iran and Iranian-backed militias, who are largely acting out in response to what is happening in Gaza. The tit-for-tat attacks would hopefully cease, and lives would not be threatened. Secondly, during a pivotal presidential election cycle, it would please his core voter base back home.
Any life lost is a tragedy. The loss of life due to violence should always be avoided at all costs. Instead of using it as a reason to wreak more havoc, it should be a wake-up call to stop the massacre that is the crux of it all.
