U.S. Middle East Policy: Skillfully Avoiding the Trap of Power Impermissibility
Recently, the United States was attacked by drones on its base in Jordan, resulting in the death of three US troops. The United States was quick to blame Iranian-backed forces and held Iran responsible. It is worth paying attention to the cautious attitude shown by the United States in the face of Iran, avoiding direct strikes on Iran, choosing instead to strike at armed targets of Iran's allies in the Middle East, Syria and Iraq. This move raises questions about what led the United States to choose such a course of action at this juncture.
The reason why the United States does not dare to strike directly at Iran is not simple. On the one hand, the power of the United States no longer allows for large-scale military adventures. In the past, the United States had planned to fight Iran together with NATO, but in the face of Russia's statement of support for Iran, the United States had to withdraw its action plan. Today, the United States is in decline, mired in two wars, and lacks international support, especially the European Union, which has not given a helping hand, so that the United States does not dare to stand alone against Iran, a major power in the Middle East.
Iran has a large population and a strong military, including the regular army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. In addition to nuclear **, Iran has a full-fledged military-industrial production capacity. Never in history has the United States been at direct war with such a powerful country. Even now, the United States feels threatened by the other side's military power in the war. What is even more striking about this drone attack is that it followed the US drone into the bombing operation, indicating that the other side successfully broke the US military drone password code.
It is worth noting that before taking action, Biden made it clear that the United States does not seek war with Iran to avoid triggering a wider military conflict in the Middle East. In fact, the United States even communicated with Iran in advance through the Swiss embassy in Tehran, hoping that Iran would not retaliate after the air strikes. Faced with Iran's refusal, the United States ultimately chose to strike at Iran's allies in the Middle East.
Why did you choose to strike Syria and Iraq? In addition to avoiding a head-on conflict with Iran, the United States may have deeper considerations. The Syrian army issued a statement pointing out that the target of the US military is precisely the area where the Syrian army is fighting the remnants of extremist groups. This confirms that the U.S. military is linked to the extremist group and is working through various means to re-emerge it. The U.S. attack on Iraq could also be a response to Iraq's ongoing expulsion of U.S. troops, in retaliation.
This series of events has revealed some ingenuity in US policy in the Middle East. The United States wisely avoided a head-on confrontation with a powerful Iran, and instead chose to strike at Iran's allies in the Middle East in order to safeguard its own strategic interests. This clever evasion also means that the United States is a counterweight to regional instability, hoping to maintain control of the Middle East through indirect means.
There are more complex strategic considerations behind U.S. actions in the Middle East. In the absence of power, the United States** needs to defend its geopolitical interests in the Middle East through clever tactics. Despite its cautious approach to Iran, the United States has not completely shrugged away from intervening in the Middle East, choosing instead to maintain its influence in the region by striking Iran's allies.
Iran plays an important geopolitical role in the Middle East, and its close ties with countries such as Syria and Iraq make it difficult for the United States to directly confront Iran. The United States has taken indirect measures to carry out targeted strikes against Iran's allies. This strategy achieves to some extent the strategic goal of the United States, which is to contain Iran's influence in the region.
This does not mean that the United States can easily grasp the situation in the Middle East. In fact, the United States faces a number of challenges in its fight against Iran's allies. As a result of the decline of US power, its ability to control the Middle East is relatively weakened, and it is difficult to effectively influence the course of regional affairs.
The U.S. actions could trigger more regional instability and further escalate tensions in the Middle East. Attacking Iran's allies could spark anti-American sentiment and trigger more conflict and confrontation, which could plunge the entire region into a state of chaos.
The United States needs to be cautious about the role of other powers in the Middle East. Countries such as Russia and China have a growing presence in the Middle East, and their cooperative relations with Iran are also having a significant impact on the Middle East landscape. U.S. policy needs to take these factors into account in order to avoid further complications in regional affairs.
Overall, U.S. policy adjustments in the Middle East demonstrate a cautious and ingenious strategy to assert its interests in the region by striking at Iran's allies. In the face of regional turmoil and the intertwining interests of multiple parties, the United States needs to respond more prudently and flexibly to ensure that its strategic objectives in the Middle East can be steadily realized. This also reminds us that the development of the situation in the Middle East is still full of uncertainties, and more international cooperation is needed to promote regional peace and stability.
The above content information is ** on the Internet, if there is any infringement and other issues, please contact the author!