Escalating Tensions: The Complex Web of Regional Conflicts Involving Iranian Allies

 

The geopolitical landscape in the Middle East continues to be fraught with tension as Iranian allies in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon make strategic moves, triggering a delicate balancing act between the United States and Iran.

 

Since the onset of the Gaza war, Iranian allies in Iraq and Syria have launched approximately 140 rocket and drone attacks against American troops. Notably, a severe attack occurred on January 20th when a volley of "multiple ballistic missiles and rockets" targeted the Al Asad base in western Iraq, causing injuries to an undisclosed number of Americans and Iraqis. While Patriot air-defense batteries intercepted most of the missiles, some struck the base, intensifying pressure on President Biden to consider stronger actions against Iran itself. This dilemma poses challenges for the administration, as any retaliation risks the prospect of a new war in an election year.

 

Simultaneously, in Yemen, the U.S. launched its seventh raid against the Houthi militia, a key Iranian ally controlling a significant portion of the country. The strikes aimed to curb Houthi missile attacks on ships navigating the Bab al-Mandab strait. Despite claiming to support Palestinians, the Houthis' targeting appears erratic, raising concerns about potential Iranian involvement in aiding their identification of ships and weapon operation.

 

President Biden concedes that these strikes may not halt the Houthi activities. However, reports suggest that the Biden administration is contemplating a "sustained military campaign" in Yemen, highlighting internal divisions over the approach.

 

In Lebanon, Hizbullah, Iran's longstanding ally, a Shia militia, and political party, has engaged in periodic clashes with Israeli forces. While expressing support for Hamas, Hizbullah has refrained from fully committing to a war against Israel. The Biden administration's diplomatic efforts have so far deterred Israel from launching a preemptive assault on Hizbullah. However, Israel has indicated potential action if Hizbullah forces persist in firing near the border.

 

This delicate dance between the United States and Iran underscores the challenges of maintaining equilibrium in the face of proxy conflicts. Iran's support for its allies within the "axis of resistance" seeks to weaken Israel, displace American influence, and discredit Arab states that have normalized relations with Israel. In response, the U.S. has engaged in measured retaliation, avoiding direct confrontation. Yet, the fragile equilibrium may be unsustainable, raising concerns about the potential for further escalation in an already volatile region.

 

22.01.24

Source

 

2 hours ago, Social Media said:

President Biden concedes that these strikes may not halt the Houthi activities. However, reports suggest that the Biden administration is contemplating a "sustained military campaign" in Yemen, highlighting internal divisions over the approach.

Here we go again! Old men starting wars and young men coming home in body bags. I guess Biden just didn't want to miss out on starting his very own war.

34 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Here we go again! Old men starting wars and young men coming home in body bags. I guess Biden just didn't want to miss out on starting his very own war.

Yeah.  I miss the mean tweets.

 

Sadly, there's a political belief that voters are reluctant to switch leaders during time of war.  So the timing would fit...

 

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Here we go again! Old men starting wars and young men coming home in body bags. I guess Biden just didn't want to miss out on starting his very own war.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

This was started by the Houthis.

Iran is 3 times bigger, and has 3 times the population of Iraq. War with Iran? Good luck with that!

I think I'm more targeted approach like taking out the Ayatollah and some of the top officials in Iran would be a good place to start. You don't need a war for that. 

12 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I think I'm more targeted approach like taking out the Ayatollah and some of the top officials in Iran would be a good place to start. You don't need a war for that. 

And then you're left with a power-vacuum. Look at Iraq after Saddam was deposed, or Libya after Gadaffi?
 

Edited January 22, 20242 yr by Andrew65

Go home yanks. If there were no US soldiers interfering in Syria and Iraq then they could not be attacked.They are an unwanted pox on the earth.

5 hours ago, impulse said:

Yeah.  I miss the mean tweets.

 

Sadly, there's a political belief that voters are reluctant to switch leaders during time of war.  So the timing would fit...

 

 

Trump's Abraham Accords were a direct challenge to Iran and helped provoke October 7th. A resolution between Israel and the Palestinians before the Abraham accords would have been sane.

 

There are also geopolitical concerns at work. Israel is currently in the midst of a US-brokered negotiation to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia, a major follow-up to the Abraham Accord agreements struck with several Arab countries during the Trump administration. Normalization is widely seen among Palestinians as the Arab world giving up on them, agreeing to treat Israel like a normal country even as the occupation deepens.

 

https://www.vox.com/2023/10/7/23907323/israel-war-hamas-attack-explained-southern-israel-gaza

Edited January 22, 20242 yr by ozimoron

35 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I think I'm more targeted approach like taking out the Ayatollah and some of the top officials in Iran would be a good place to start. You don't need a war for that. 

yeah all those religious leaders that fled IRAN when the SHah was there, even though towards his leaving in '79, life had changed tremendously for a Muslim state.  Women wore western fashions, teens listened to western music, females were allowed to go to all levels of school including government paid for college and women could become just about anything as far as a career went.  Then, the Muslim Imams in France zoomed back into the country and SLAM BAM maam get out of school cover your head and body all the time.  Same thing for Afghanistan, let an exile be the one the US supported to become the leader - crooked as all get out, even stole a planeload of US cash as he story goes.  He sure didn't unite the different warlords against the rebels.  

15 minutes ago, The Old Bull said:

Go home yanks. If there were no US soldiers interfering in Syria and Iraq then they could not be attacked.They are an unwanted pox on the earth.

Yeah ask the regular Afghanis - those everyday workers, women students etc, if it is better now that the US soldiers left and the Taliban and ISIS

are running things?  One of the latest laws - only a female doctor can examine an Afghani woman yet Aghani women are not allowed to go to school even -how can they become a doctor to check on the females?

 

8 minutes ago, Presnock said:

Yeah ask the regular Afghanis - those everyday workers, women students etc, if it is better now that the US soldiers left and the Taliban and ISIS

are running things?  One of the latest laws - only a female doctor can examine an Afghani woman yet Aghani women are not allowed to go to school even -how can they become a doctor to check on the females?

 

Iran's similar to Saudi Arabia? The big deal is that Iran is calling for the destruction of Israel, but Saudi isn't. Saddam was an arch-enemy of Israel, so he had to go.

Edited January 22, 20242 yr by Andrew65

48 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I think I'm more targeted approach like taking out the Ayatollah and some of the top officials in Iran would be a good place to start. You don't need a war for that. 

 

Because killing a country's leader is one sure way not to start a war? You don't think someone else will step up? Plus, do you have any idea what this sort of operation entails? It's basically an act of war and rather complicated military operation, which is not sure to succeed.

 

And let's say all the leadership is taken down, what then? You imagine some pro-West guy will waltz in and everything will be ok? Or maybe the power vacuum will result in the usual ME mess, but with a larger stockpile of arms to go around?

 

Thinking before posting. It's a thing.

Just now, Andrew65 said:

Similar to Saudi Arabia?

 

Saudi Arabia, for all it's faults, is not a failed state.

Since independence, America has only had about 20 years of peace. Somehow, I am not surprised.

However, I just hope that Europe doesn't support it. 

18 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Trump's Abraham Accords were a direct challenge to Iran and helped provoke October 7th. A resolution between Israel and the Palestinians before the Abraham accords would have been sane.

 

There are also geopolitical concerns at work. Israel is currently in the midst of a US-brokered negotiation to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia, a major follow-up to the Abraham Accord agreements struck with several Arab countries during the Trump administration. Normalization is widely seen among Palestinians as the Arab world giving up on them, agreeing to treat Israel like a normal country even as the occupation deepens.

 

https://www.vox.com/2023/10/7/23907323/israel-war-hamas-attack-explained-southern-israel-gaza

 

@ozimoron

 

Sane. Got to wonder about you using the word. A resolution between Israel and the Palestinian how? Was it even in the cards? Semi-possible? Do you think all diplomacy in the ME should be subordinate to that? Why?

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

This was started by the Houthis.

BS 

1 hour ago, Andrew65 said:

Iran is 3 times bigger, and has 3 times the population of Iraq. War with Iran? Good luck with that!

IT is bigger and better armed and more zealous....but if the US are willing to ignore Iraq and invade from there on land while flattening Tehran from the air, I think there is a good chance that the US will win the initial conflict, but will of course lose the war eventually. It is not easy for even a superpower to invade and hold another country.

33 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Trump's Abraham Accords were a direct challenge to Iran and helped provoke October 7th. A resolution between Israel and the Palestinians before the Abraham accords would have been sane.

 

There are also geopolitical concerns at work. Israel is currently in the midst of a US-brokered negotiation to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia, a major follow-up to the Abraham Accord agreements struck with several Arab countries during the Trump administration. Normalization is widely seen among Palestinians as the Arab world giving up on them, agreeing to treat Israel like a normal country even as the occupation deepens.

 

https://www.vox.com/2023/10/7/23907323/israel-war-hamas-attack-explained-southern-israel-gaza

Great comment, Ozi, really great.

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Here we go again! Old men starting wars and young men coming home in body bags. I guess Biden just didn't want to miss out on starting his very own war.

Hmm, 

I hear you, however, I cannot fault Biden for responding to defending against Houthi initiated attacks on shipping in international waters, nor responding to attacks on Americans in Iraq. I recommend some semblance of balance in your outlook.

56 minutes ago, The Old Bull said:

Go home yanks. If there were no US soldiers interfering in Syria and Iraq then they could not be attacked.They are an unwanted pox on the earth.

 

They were there protecting Kurds. You know, the guys who fought on our side against ISIS and did most of the heavy lifting. The ones Trump abandoned.

1 hour ago, Andrew65 said:

Iran is 3 times bigger, and has 3 times the population of Iraq. War with Iran? Good luck with that!

Let me recommend reviewing the years of the Iraq - Iran War.

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Here we go again! Old men starting wars and young men coming home in body bags. I guess Biden just didn't want to miss out on starting his very own war.

Best for Biden to strike near election time, never underestimate the cohesive power of a war, no need for boots on the ground if you aren't going to hold territory A few sentimental presidential broadcasts and his approval ratings will soar causing old stinky to fume.

4 minutes ago, Wrwest said:

Let me recommend reviewing the years of the Iraq - Iran War.

 

The US put it's thumb heavily on the scale there, militarily supporting both sides.

1 minute ago, soalbundy said:

Best for Biden to strike near election time, never underestimate the cohesive power of a war, no need for boots on the ground if you aren't going to hold territory A few sentimental presidential broadcasts and his approval ratings will soar causing old stinky to fume.

 

Maybe Trump moving the embassy to East Jerusalem and fostering a military alliance against Iran wasn't the best idea after all?

Yet more scaremongering. Earlier we had NATO preparing for war with Russia, when in fact the key word is deterrence. Both sides are well aware that a war can never be fought between two nuclear armed sides. In this case, neither the US or Iran want a direct confrontation. Iran is content to use its proxies and the Biden administration will do anything to avoid one. While the situation is volatile, most analysts concur that it remains unlikely.

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Here we go again! Old men starting wars and young men coming home in body bags. I guess Biden just didn't want to miss out on starting his very own war.

Gotta keep selling the USA military hardware.

Biden's final card.

 

Start a war in an attempt to win votes. Sacrificing young men for his old ego.

 

Could he sink any lower ?

6 minutes ago, Summerinsiam said:

Yet more scaremongering. Earlier we had NATO preparing for war with Russia, when in fact the key word is deterrence. Both sides are well aware that a war can never be fought between two nuclear armed sides. In this case, neither the US or Iran want a direct confrontation. Iran is content to use its proxies and the Biden administration will do anything to avoid one. While the situation is volatile, most analysts concur that it remains unlikely.

 

NATO war with Russia is a realistic possibility. Russia has already fought Finland and any territorial incursions into Moldova or Poland. Or assisting Serbia to fight Kosovo again could trigger NATO involvement.

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

I think I'm more targeted approach like taking out the Ayatollah and some of the top officials in Iran would be a good place to start. You don't need a war for that. 

 

 

Isn't there always someone waiting in the wings to replace whoever is offed?