According to reports, a drone of unknown nationality launched an attack on a US military base near Jordan, killing three US soldiers and injuring more than 30 others. This is the first time since the outbreak of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that US troops have been killed in the Middle East. Previously, US military bases in the Middle East were often attacked, but Americans often only admitted that soldiers had minor brain injuries such as brain injuries, and did not admit that any soldiers were killed. The attack caught the U.S. military off guard and raised questions about America's position and strength in the Middle East. However, the United States has shown great restraint in this incident. The White House did not immediately retaliate, but said it would hold accountable at the right time and in the right way. This restrained and cautious attitude contrasts sharply with the tough US response to similar incidents in the past.
Some analysts believe that this may be because the United States is now facing a multi-front war and cannot concentrate on dealing with Middle East affairs, or it may be that Biden hopes to solve the problem through diplomatic means and avoid escalating the conflict. However, some politicians expressed dissatisfaction with Biden's restrained attitude. Trump criticized Biden for being weak and capitulating, arguing that his policies led to the US military suffering. Republican Senator Tom Cotton also expressed support for Trump's claims, arguing that Biden left U.S. troops sitting and waiting to be attacked. Overall, the attack has raised questions about America's position and power in the Middle East. The U.S. military presence in the Middle East is already facing threats on multiple fronts, and the way the U.S. military responds to them is changing. In the future, changes in the situation in the Middle East may have a profound impact on the status and influence of the United States. Who is behind the second attack in the Middle East?
Recently, a number of US military bases in Iraq were attacked, and the US side claimed that they were carried out by Iraqi militia forces. However, these attacks displayed a high level of tactical skill, which closely resembled the way the U.S. military operated, raising questions about what was really behind the scenes. First of all, we can note that the tactics used in the attack were very precise and skillful, which required a fairly high level of military literacy and actual combat experience. However, Iraq's militias do not possess such capabilities, and their tactical operations rely more on guerrilla warfare and terrorist attacks. Therefore, we need to think, if not armed with militias, then who really mastered such tactical skills? Secondly, we also need to pay attention to how to grasp the whereabouts of drones at US military bases. Drones were used in these attacks for reconnaissance and attack, which required technical and intelligence support. However, Iraq's militias struggle to possess such capabilities, lacking advanced technology and intelligence networks.
Therefore, we need to think further, who will be able to master such technology and intelligence and carry out targeted strikes on US military bases? Of course, the US side claims that these attacks were carried out by militia forces in Iraq, and this has its own reasons. The United States** may want to blame Iraq's internal problems for the attack in order to avoid triggering a larger conflict. If the United States were to strike directly at military targets in Iran, it could provoke Iranian retaliation and even trigger a large-scale war in the Middle East. What we need to recognize, however, is that America's allies are not willing to engage in this war. Over the past few years, some of America's allies have expressed dissatisfaction and fatigue with wars in the Middle East. They prefer to resolve the issue through diplomatic and peaceful means rather than remain involved in the conflict. This would cause significant damage to the established strategy of the United States and could lead to a decline in the position and influence of the United States in the Middle East. Finally, we also need to pay attention to the demands that the United States has made of China.
In recent years, American hardliners have tried to put pressure on China in the hope that China will exert influence in the situation in the Red Sea in order to solve the problems raised by the United States. However, the Chinese side believes that the United States should be responsible for solving the problems it has created, rather than passing the blame on other countries. To sum up, the attacks in the Middle East have raised concerns and questions. Who is behind the scenes? If the United States were to carry out direct strikes on military targets in Iran, it could trigger a large-scale war in the Middle East, in which America's allies are reluctant to participate. In addition, the U.S. approach to China has also caused controversy. We need more evidence and information to uncover the truth so that we can better understand and respond to the situation. Biden should consider withdrawing troops from the Middle East to reduce annoyance and avoid implicationWith Biden** taking office, U.S. foreign policy issues in the Middle East have attracted much attention.
At this critical juncture, it is necessary to revisit the U.S. military presence in the Middle East and how Biden should handle this complex situation. First, let's review the consequences of U.S. military intervention in the Middle East over the past few decades. From the war in Iraq to the war in Afghanistan, the presence of U.S. troops has not solved regional problems, but has only exacerbated instability and instability. In addition, U.S. military action has triggered a terrorist response that has led to more fighting and sacrifices. These facts undoubtedly prove that the US military presence in the Middle East has not achieved the desired results, but has instead placed a huge burden on the United States. So, how should Biden deal with this? The author believes that Biden can learn from his courage in dealing with the Afghan issue to solve the problems in the Middle East. As he said in his speech in Afghanistan: "We cannot prolong the war in Afghanistan to the next generation, we must end this war." The same applies to the Middle East.
Biden needs to explain to the American people and the international community why we need to continue to invest significant military resources and manpower in the Middle East and come up with a clear withdrawal plan. The withdrawal does not mean that the United States has abandoned the Middle East, but it means taking a more sensible and pragmatic approach to solving the problem. In fact, the United States can promote stability and development in the Middle East through diplomacy and international cooperation. For example, the United States can work with regional countries to develop a common counterterrorism strategy and strengthen intelligence sharing and border security cooperation to address the threat of terrorism. In addition, the United States can contribute to regional stability by supporting the political and economic development of regional countries. These are more feasible and effective methods, and military intervention has yielded much better results. Of course, the withdrawal is not an overnight thing, and plans and strategies need to be carefully developed. First, Biden needs to fully communicate and consult with regional countries to understand their wishes and needs.
Secondly, he needs to take into account some of the consequences that may result from the withdrawal and take measures to deal with them accordingly. Most importantly, Biden needs to explain to the American people why withdrawing troops is a smart choice and gain their support. In fact, Biden has earned widespread praise for his courage and decisiveness in dealing with Afghanistan. Now, he has the opportunity to demonstrate the same leadership in the Middle East. By withdrawing troops, Biden can reduce the troubles and involvement in the Middle East, and will have more resources and energy to devote to solving problems in other countries and regions, such as addressing climate change and promoting economic development. This is not only in the interests of the United States, but also in line with the expectations of the international community. All in all, Biden should consider withdrawing U.S. troops from the Middle East to reduce annoyance and avoid being implicated. Through diplomacy and international cooperation, Biden can promote stability and development in the Middle East. Withdrawal is not an overnight thing, it requires plans and strategies, as well as support at home and abroad.
Biden has shown his boldness and determination, and it's time to make the same decision in the Middle East. This is not only good for the United States, but also good for peace and prosperity in the Middle East.