U.S. conducts air strikes against Iranian-backed militia facilities in Syria: Pentagon

[webfact]

U.S. conducts air strikes against Iranian-backed militia facilities in Syria: Pentagon

By Idrees Ali and Phil Stewart

 

FILE PHOTO: The Pentagon building is seen in Arlington, Virginia, U.S. October 9, 2020. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Joe Biden on Thursday directed U.S. military air strikes in eastern Syria against facilities belonging to what the Pentagon said were Iran-backed militia, in a calibrated response to rocket attacks against U.S. targets in Iraq.

 

The strikes, which were first reported by Reuters, appeared to be limited in scope, potentially lowering the risk of escalation.

 

Biden's decision to strike only in Syria and not in Iraq, at least for now, also gives the Iraqi government some breathing room as it carries out its own investigation of a Feb. 15 attack that wounded Americans.

 

"At President (Joe) Biden’s direction, U.S. military forces earlier this evening conducted airstrikes against infrastructure utilized by Iranian-backed militant groups in eastern Syria," Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said in a statement.

 

"President Biden will act to protect American and Coalition personnel. At the same time, we have acted in a deliberate manner that aims to de-escalate the overall situation in both eastern Syria and Iraq," Kirby said.

 

He added that the strikes destroyed multiple facilities at a border control point used by a number of Iranian-backed militant groups, including Kata'ib Hezbollah (KH) and Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada (KSS).

 

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the decision to carry out the strikes was meant to send a signal that while the United States wanted to punish the militias, it did not want the situation to spiral into a bigger conflict.

 

The official added that Biden was presented with a range of options and one of the most limited responses was chosen.

It was not immediately clear what damage was caused and if there were any casualties from the U.S. strike.

 

'NECESSARY DETERRENT'

Representative Michael McCaul, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the strikes were the right move.

 

"Responses like this are a necessary deterrent and remind Iran, its proxies, and our adversaries around the world that attacks on U.S. interests will not be tolerated," McCaul said.

 

Suzanne Maloney, of the Brookings Institution think tank, said the strikes showed the Biden administration could negotiate with Iran on the nuclear deal while pushing back against the militias it backed.

 

"Good move by... Biden (administration) demonstrating US can walk and chew gum at the same time," she said on Twitter.

 

The rocket attacks on U.S. positions in Iraq were carried out as Washington and Tehran are looking for a way to return to the 2015 nuclear deal abandoned by former U.S. President Donald Trump.

 

It was not clear how, or whether, the strike might affect U.S. efforts to coax Iran back into a negotiation about both sides resuming compliance with the agreement.

 

In the Feb. 15 attack, rockets hit the U.S. military base housed at Erbil International Airport in the Kurdish-run region, killing one non-American contractor and injuring a number of American contractors and a U.S. service member.

 

Another salvo struck a base hosting U.S. forces north of Baghdad days later, hurting at least one contractor.

 

Rockets hit Baghdad’s Green Zone on Monday, which houses the U.S. Embassy and other diplomatic missions.

 

Earlier this week, the Kata'ib Hezbollah group, one of the main Iran-aligned Iraqi militia groups, denied any role in the rocket attacks.

 

Some Western and Iraqi officials say the attacks, often claimed by little-known groups, are being carried out by militants with links to Kata'ib Hezbollah as a way for Iranian allies to harass U.S. forces without being held accountable.

 

Since late 2019, the United States has carried out high-profile strikes against the Kata'ib Hezbollah militia group in Iraq and Syria in response to sometimes deadly rocket attacks against U.S.-led forces.

 

Under the Trump administration, the escalatory back-and-forth stoked tensions, culminating in the U.S. killing of Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani and a retaliatory Iranian ballistic missile attack against U.S. forces in Iraq last year.

 

(Reporting by Idrees Ali and Phil Stewart; Editing by Grant McCool and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2021-02-26

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[spiekerjozef]

1 month in the office, let's start a war so we can sell more guns.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, spiekerjozef said:

1 month in the office, let's start a war so we can sell more guns.

Alternatively, return to the long-standing policy that killing Americans will have consequences.

[billd766]

31 minutes ago, spiekerjozef said:

1 month in the office, let's start a war so we can sell more guns.

That little "war" as you call it was going on before President Biden won the presidential election last November.

 

And who is the US going to sell more guns to?

[donnacha]

Back to business as normal.

Not complaining, just noting that what we all knew would happen is happening.

A full-on war with Iran could be good for the economy if Covid-19 as a reason for money-printing will soon be exhausted. They will have to do something to keep all the balls up in the air.

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by donnacha

[Natai Beach]

I hope no innocent people were killed this time.

[EVENKEEL]

19 minutes ago, Natai Beach said:

I hope no innocent people were killed this time.

 

/

Edited February 26, 2021 by EVENKEEL

[blazes]

 

Welcome back to the old normal.  Business as usual.  Thank you, President Eisenhower, for inventing the correct phrase to describe who the bosses are in the American state: the military/Industrial complex.  Forget Biden, forget Trump and all the rest...

 

It matters not who occupies the White House so long as the military and the likes of Dorsey/Zuckerberg et al call the shots.

[phantomfiddler]

Bombing to “de-escalate” a situation sounds rather similar to “Floggings will continue until morale improves” ????

[from the home of CC]

they just wanted to give the Israelis a day off..

[BangkokReady]

Is anyone surprised?  I wonder how long until a false flag swiftly followed by boots on the ground?  Resurgence of ISIS by the end of the year?

 

But Trump's the bad guy, right?  Lol.

[PatOngo]

....and the origin  of covid goes untouched!????

[Nout]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Alternatively, return to the long-standing policy that killing Americans will have consequences.

Killing invaders, occupiers? Yeah...worked really well so far. Has America won a war since WW2?

[Sujo]

20 minutes ago, Nout said:

Killing invaders, occupiers? Yeah...worked really well so far. Has America won a war since WW2?

What war was started by this.

[Sujo]

33 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Is anyone surprised?  I wonder how long until a false flag swiftly followed by boots on the ground?  Resurgence of ISIS by the end of the year?

 

But Trump's the bad guy, right?  Lol.

I didnt pick you as an iran supporter.

[BangkokReady]

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

I didnt pick you as an iran supporter.

 

I'm more of a peace supporter.

 

I'd support military action if it was unquestionably needed, proportional, didn't kill tons innocent people and create yet more refuges.

 

I don't trust whomever is Biden's puppet master to make the right decisions.

 

If Hillary had beaten Trump, we know there would have been a huge war in the Middle East.  Not the cooling off that we saw under Trump (one of the many good things that everyone seems to forget).

 

I really don't want ISIS to return, and they seem pretty closely linked to military action by Western nations in the Middle East.

[Sujo]

7 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

I'm more of a peace supporter.

 

I'd support military action if it was unquestionably needed, proportional, didn't kill tons innocent people and create yet more refuges.

 

I don't trust whomever is Biden's puppet master to make the right decisions.

 

If Hillary had beaten Trump, we know there would have been a huge war in the Middle East.  Not the cooling off that we saw under Trump (one of the many good things that everyone seems to forget).

 

I really don't want ISIS to return, and they seem pretty closely linked to military action by Western nations in the Middle East.

I got news for you. Isis was not defeated.

Did you forget trump also killed a rather important person in the middle east.

 

But but hillary, rent free.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Sujo

[Solinvictus]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Alternatively, return to the long-standing policy that killing Americans will have consequences.

Could you explain this a bit please?

[Solinvictus]

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

Is anyone surprised?  I wonder how long until a false flag swiftly followed by boots on the ground?  Resurgence of ISIS by the end of the year?

 

But Trump's the bad guy, right?  Lol.

I'm not surprised, no. Well, I don't think it's that simple with regards to the Trump's the bad guy comment. But yeah, Trump, although he didn't stop the wars & support, they didn't escalate very much with him. Well, he did kill that important Iranian. I'd like to mention that Trump did continue to withdraw from missile treaties.

 

I standby to be corrected.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Solinvictus

[BangkokReady]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

I got news for you. Isis was not defeated.

 

Semantics.  What they had was defeated.

 

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Did you forget trump also killed a rather important person in the middle east.

 

Is that equivalent to something like staring a ground war?  Moving troops in (as I am speculating about)?

 

I don't believe that Trump wanted more troops and more fighting in the Middle East.  I think if he did want that, then it would have happened.  Can you say the same for the last three Democrat candidates?

 

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

But but hillary, rent free.

 

If you say so, but it's just a name.  Would you prefer "If the Democrat candidate had beaten Trump"?  I don't care about the person.  It's what they do that is the problem.  Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize while killing innocent families with drone strikes.

[ukrules]

3 hours ago, donnacha said:

Not complaining, just noting that what we all knew would happen is happening.

 

Yes, very predictable right down to the target country.

 

I only wondered how long it would be.

[Solinvictus]

16 minutes ago, Sujo said:

I got news for you. Isis was not defeated.

Did you forget trump also killed a rather important person in the middle east.

 

But but hillary, rent free.

Well, both are adherents to the military industrial complex along with the corporate state that is the United States government we know today. They both continued to corporate coup.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, phantomfiddler said:

Bombing to “de-escalate” a situation sounds rather similar to “Floggings will continue until morale improves” ????

 

If attacks go unanswered, they increase. If the response is over the top, it could result in an escalation. Maybe not the best choice of words, but pretty much how it is. There's no handy diplomatic solution to this situation. at least not at this time. The best that can be done is keep things at a certain level.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

Is anyone surprised?  I wonder how long until a false flag swiftly followed by boots on the ground?  Resurgence of ISIS by the end of the year?

 

But Trump's the bad guy, right?  Lol.

 

I was wondering how long before some informed poster would mention 'false flag', 'boots on the ground' etc.

Didn't take long. No surprises.

[EVENKEEL]

Funny how things are different when a democrat does the strongman routine. If it had been Trump the level of support would have been less.

[BangkokReady]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

Didn't take long. No surprises.

 

Are you actually suggesting these things don't happen?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, EVENKEEL said:

Funny how things are different when a democrat does the strongman routine. If it had been Trump the level of support would have been less.

I’ll remind you, Trump’s response to Russia offering bounties for the killing of Americans was, do nothing, say nothing.

 

 

[PatOngo]

1 minute ago, EVENKEEL said:

Funny how things are different when a democrat does the strongman routine. If it had been Trump the level of support would have been less.

Trump threatened to make China pay for the covid pandemic, what happened???

[Morch]

28 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

I'm more of a peace supporter.

 

I'd support military action if it was unquestionably needed, proportional, didn't kill tons innocent people and create yet more refuges.

 

I don't trust whomever is Biden's puppet master to make the right decisions.

 

If Hillary had beaten Trump, we know there would have been a huge war in the Middle East.  Not the cooling off that we saw under Trump (one of the many good things that everyone seems to forget).

 

I really don't want ISIS to return, and they seem pretty closely linked to military action by Western nations in the Middle East.

 

Were civilians killed in this attack? Was it disproportionate compared with the attack preceding it? Were there any refugees 'created' by it?

 

What 'puppet master' would that be? Anything whatsoever to back that with?

 

No, 'we' don't know HRC becoming POTUS would have resulted in this or that. You claim it. Not the same thing. And, of course, she didn't win. Cooling off under Trump? As in when he pulled out of the JCPOA? Or assassinated an senior Iranian official?

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, Solinvictus said:

Well, both are adherents to the military industrial complex along with the corporate state that is the United States government we know today. They both continued to corporate coup.

 

Waffle.