U.S. Airstrikes on Iraq and Syria: Military Deterrence or Political Face? Recently, US retaliatory air strikes in Iraq and Syria have attracted widespread attention. However, the scale of the strikes seemed to be huge, and in reality only one or two missiles were assigned to each target, which was small compared to previous strikes. This makes people wonder whether the US air raids are for military deterrence or for political face. First of all, we need to be clear that this airstrike did not cause substantial losses to Iran. Although the United States claimed that the target was destroyed, in fact Iran's high-level personnel had already evacuated ahead of schedule and avoided **. This makes the practical effect of air strikes relatively limited. At the same time, Biden's statements before the airstrikes showed his hesitation and indecision, giving Iran the opportunity to transfer high-level personnel. This has undoubtedly weakened the deterrent power of the United States. Second, the airstrikes were more about saving face for the "military myth" of the United States than for real retaliation.
The United States has always boasted of being the world's police and military power, and its air strikes are aimed at maintaining that image. However, the fact that each target is only allocated one or two missiles undoubtedly exposes that the United States has lost its past military superiority in the Middle East. This airstrike once again shows that the United States is no longer capable of triggering a war of conflict on a larger scale. Why, then, did the United States opt for such a smaller-scale air raid? There could be several reasons for this. First of all, the United States does not want to escalate the conflict with Iran and avoid further tensions. Second, the United States may have taken into account the complex situation in the Middle East and does not want to get involved in more disputes. In addition, support for military action is also declining within the United States, and Biden may also want to avoid sparking domestic controversy. However, the true purpose of the air raid remains a mystery. Officially, the United States claimed that it was in retaliation for previous attacks, but the actual effect was not obvious.
Some observers believe that the airstrike was more of a signal to Iran that the United States will not tolerate Iran's provocations. But it remains to be seen whether such a signal will act as a deterrent. In conclusion, the US air strikes on Iraq and Syria raise many questions. Whether it is military deterrence or political face, this air strike has exposed the dilemma of the United States in the Middle East. In any case, we hope that this air strike will not further exacerbate tensions in the Middle East, but will contribute to the promotion of peace and stability in the region. U.S. Retaliation Against Iran: Symbolism and Practical Impact Recently, the United States launched airstrikes against Iranian groups in response to Iran's attack on U.S. troops. This action has sparked concern and speculation about the situation in the Middle East. However, let's think about what exactly does this retaliation mean? First, we need to recognize that Iran's influence in the Middle East is complex and far-reaching.
Iran has expanded its sphere of influence by supporting various groups of ** people, including Allah in Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq, and Houthis in Yemen. However, these organizations are not entirely controlled by Iran, and they have different ambitions and political agendas. Therefore, even if Iran wants to avoid direct conflict with the United States, it may not be able to fully control the actions of its personal organization. Second, we need to think about the practical impact of this retaliation. Biden has a high bar for retaliation and wants to avoid escalating the conflict. However, the atmosphere in the United States seems to be inclined to de-escalate the situation, hoping to make it smaller. This means that the symbolism of this air strike may be greater than the actual significance. It is expected that once the US retaliation is over, the situation in the Middle East will return to the state it used to be, and US troops will remain in Iraq and Syria, while militia groups may launch attacks from time to time. So, what should we expect from this retaliation?
Biden has said they will not allow Americans to be harmed. Historically, however, the United States has also launched a manhunt for the killing of Americans, a goal that may not be realistic. More importantly, we need to consider how to balance retaliation with the risk of further escalation. The United States should think about how to resolve its differences with Iran through diplomatic means and seek a stable and long-term solution in the Middle East. In addition, we should also recognize the complexity of the Middle East region as reflected in this retaliation. The Middle East involves the entanglement of interests of multiple countries and various religious sects, which makes it extremely difficult to solve the problem. We should strive to understand the positions and aspirations of all parties and seek opportunities for dialogue and cooperation. Finally, let's consider the question: will this retaliation solve the problems of the Middle East? The answer may not be promising. The airstrikes were only a short-lived event, and the problems in the Middle East were the result of a long-term accumulation.
Solving these problems will require more effort and ingenuity, and will require all parties to work together, not just rely on retaliatory actions. Therefore, we need to keep a clear head and rational thinking about this retaliatory action. Stability and peace in the Middle East can only be achieved by finding a fundamental way to solve the problem. (2365 words).