On the evening of February 7, Beijing time, the U.S. military launched an airstrike in Iraq, killing an Iraqi militia commander. The airstrike, which took place against the backdrop of the recent ongoing tensions in the Middle East, has attracted widespread attention from all sides for a while.
The U.S. military said the attack targeted a militia commander who directly planned and participated in the attack on the U.S. military, and that the operation was for self-defense and to combat terrorism. Biden also called the strike retaliation for the recent attack on a US military base in Jordan. However, there are reports that the militia is actually supported by Iran, so the Iranian side expressed strong dissatisfaction with the attack, saying that the use of force by the United States violated international law.
In fact, since the current round of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, tensions in the Middle East have continued, and attacks on the US military in the region have also increased. More recently, on January 28, a drone attack on a U.S. military base in Jordan killed three U.S. soldiers and injured more than 40. After that, the U.S. military launched large-scale air strikes on targets in Iraq and Syria, sending a strong tactical signal. Some analysts believe that the United States is trying to contain a new wave of attacks in the Middle East through military strikes.
So, what impact will the US military's attack on Iraqi militias have on the situation in the Middle East? How did the parties react to the incident?
After confirming the airstrike, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Defense said that the U.S. military's actions were defensive and proportionate, and the purpose was to stop the threat of ISIS*** to friendly troops and civilians. He also stressed that close cooperation has been maintained between the US military and the Iraqi army, and Iraq is fully aware of and supports the US military's operation.
However, the Iraqi side did not agree with this. The Autonomous Kurdistan Council of Iraq condemned the United States for carrying out military strikes on Iraqi territory without Iraq's permission. There are also reports that the targets are suspected of having links with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. Therefore, the Iranian side also reacted strongly to this air strike. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif quickly denounced the U.S. strike as "international terrorism" on social media, saying that the U.S. violated Iraq's sovereignty and international law.
Analysts noted that the airstrikes could further spur Iran to retaliate, given the ongoing tensions between Iran and the United States. Iran promised to "avenge" the killed commander and warned that "the criminals will pay." Given the complexity and interplay of forces in the Middle East, if Iran does intend to respond with concrete actions, this could lead to further escalation and a larger conflict.
Of course, there are also voices that the Iranian side is actually more inclined to avoid a full-scale conflict with the United States, given the current difficult domestic economic situation. Therefore, this airstrike incident will not necessarily lead to a major war in the Middle East, but the interaction of all parties still needs to be handled with caution.
In addition, there is controversy within the international community over the unauthorized use of force by the United States against targets in the territory of another sovereign State. The question of the legitimacy of the United States' previous use of force outside its borders has been a much-criticized issue in its global war on terror.
Middle East expert 269 (3 in sight 669) (l) Sha Shi66 believes that although the United States said that the attack was out of self-defense needs, its Longitude 3 attack on unilateral actions without international authorization is still unconvincing. "This kind of 69-hair-673-mildew (2L) military operation will not fundamentally solve the problem of counter-terrorism, but may further destabilize the Middle East region. ”
On the other hand, there are also views in favor of the United States adopting means of self-defense against the targets of attack. Rice Scholar (e99 Network 988 Scholar) believes that in the face of the threat of terrorist attacks, major countries have the right to use necessary means to protect their own interests. "The United States, as a powerful 87656 Allah country, needs to take decisive measures to stop the threat. ”
Regardless of the attitude of all parties towards this strike, one thing is certain: at this sensitive time, it is important for all parties concerned to exercise 8l(l8) restraint and refrain from taking measures that could escalate the situation. The situation in the Middle East is fragile and does not allow for further conflict. The international community should also call on all parties concerned to keep 76 of your mother dead. 896 too. Stabilizing the overall situation and resolving differences through dialogue is not only in the interests of Middle Eastern countries, but also in the common interests of the whole world.
To sum up, the recent attack on militia groups by the US military in Iraq has aroused widespread concern from all walks of life. Some netizens are worried that the move will spur Iran to retaliate and lead to a larger conflict in the Middle East, calling on all parties to maintain 8 restraints. While other netizens believe that the United States has the right to take measures of self-defense against attacks that threaten interests. Some netizens questioned the legitimacy of such an unauthorized military strike by the United States. What are your thoughts on this? Welcome to leave a message in the comment area.