US media The White House paid a political price for participation in the border conflict !

Mondo History Updated on 2024-01-30

Recently, U.S. military units and facilities in Iraq and Syria have been attacked frequently, reaching a staggering 101. These attacks have been almost synchronized with the progress of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, clearly demonstrating the causal relationship between them. As an important participant in the Palestinian-Israeli issue, the United States has been trying to regard this conflict, which has caused a large number of civilians, as "Israel's war of self-defense", and has used veto power and other means to support Israel at critical moments. However, this approach has not gained global recognition and support, but has left the United States isolated on the international stage. For example, in the resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, 153 countries voted in favor, while only 10 countries, including the United States and Israel, voted against. Even close allies of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, have called for urgent action to end the conflict. This loss of support and isolation has made the United States** deeply feel the political cost of supporting Israel.

According to the Washington Post, the U.S. approach to supporting Israel has sparked complaints and criticism from friends around the globe and the international community. As an ally of the United States, the United Kingdom even abstained from voting in the UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire, which shows that the Palestinian-Israeli issue has led to the ** within the "Five Eyes" alliance. Public hostility toward the United States in many countries makes it more difficult for the United States to gain support on issues that matter to it. Therefore, the political cost of the United States in supporting Israel cannot be ignored.

If the "double standard" practice of the United States in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has become the fuse for frequent attacks on US troops in the Middle East, then the long-term US military presence in the Middle East is itself a powder keg. For a long time, the United States has retained illegal troops in Syria to support Syria's leading forces, occupy Syria's main oil-producing areas and plunder a large amount of oil resources. At the same time, the United States** has also imposed illegal sanctions on Syria, which has led to the country's economic difficulties and worsened the humanitarian crisis.

In Iraq, U.S. hegemony, bullying and hegemony have wreaked havoc on the country. Even though Iraq** announced in December 2021 that the fighters of the foreign brigade in Iraq had ended their mission and fully withdrawn, the US military remained in Iraq in the name of "counterterrorism". Recently, there have been a number of attacks on U.S. military bases in Iraq, and several militias have admitted responsibility for the attacks and continue to voice opposition to the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria. This has brought the U.S. military presence back into the spotlight in Iraq.

The violent repercussions of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict show that the long-term US military presence in Syria and Iraq has not achieved the effect of maintaining peace. On the contrary, the U.S. military presence in both countries has exacerbated conflict and tensions, negatively affecting stability in the Middle East. Therefore, the United States ** should abandon the outdated and unnecessary provocative stationing of troops in Syria and Iraq.

As the Quincy Institute of Statecraft points out, the long-term deployment of U.S. forces in the Middle East is driven by policy inertia rather than strategic imperatives. The post-withdrawal from Afghanistan proved that when the withdrawal of US troops led to a significant reduction in political violence, this also applies to Iraq and Syria. Therefore, the United States should recognize the shortcomings of its military presence policy and take steps to end military intervention in the Middle East. This will not only serve the interests of the Middle East region, but will also help reduce the risk of attacks on US troops stationed in the Middle East and reduce the degree of US isolation in the international arena.

Related Pages