How the US reacted to the deadly drone attack in Jordan
On January 28, 2024, a drone attack on a US base in Jordan killed three US soldiers and wounded dozens more. The attack was the latest in a series of strikes against US forces in Iraq and Syria by an Iranian-backed militia, possibly Kata’ib Hezbollah, since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war on October 7, 2023. The US blamed Iran for supplying the weapons and supporting the militants, and vowed to respond in a “multi-tier” fashion. What did the US response entail, and what are the consequences for the region and the world?
A massive airstrike to send a message
The first part of the US response was a massive airstrike on February 2, 2024, involving B-1B bombers from Texas and other aircraft from the region, targeting more than 85 sites across seven locations in Iraq and Syria. The sites included command-and-control centers, rocket and missile stockpiles, drone storage sites, and supply chain facilities used by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its proxy groups. The strike was intended to send a clear message to Iran and its proxies that the US remains the world’s dominant military power and can strike anywhere on the globe. The strike also aimed to degrade the capabilities of the militia and prevent future attacks on US troops and allies in the region. According to US officials, the strike was successful and inflicted significant damage on the enemy.
Diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions to isolate Iran
The second part of the US response could involve diplomatic pressure on Iran and its allies, such as Russia and China, to rein in the militia and stop supporting their activities. The US could also seek to rally international support for its actions and condemn Iran’s role in the region. They could also impose economic sanctions on Iran and its proxies, as well as provide humanitarian assistance to the people affected by the conflict in the region. The United States could also try to revive the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which was abandoned by the Trump administration in 2018, and which Biden has expressed interest in rejoining. The US could also seek to engage in dialogue with Iran and other regional actors, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel, to address the underlying issues that fuel the conflict, such as the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the Iranian nuclear program, and the regional power struggle.
An expert’s opinion on the US response
Sky’s Defence Analyst Michael Clarke, a visiting professor at King’s College London and at the University of Exeter, and a former director of the Royal United Services Institute, provides his assessment of the US response and its implications for the region and the world. He says the US response was proportionate and justified, but also risky and escalatory, as it could provoke further retaliation from Iran and its proxies, or even a direct confrontation between the US and Iran. He also says the US response was limited and symbolic, as it did not address the root causes of the conflict, such as the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the Iranian nuclear program, and the regional power struggle. He suggests the US needs a broader and more coherent strategy for the Middle East, involving dialogue and cooperation with all the relevant actors, to achieve a lasting peace and stability.
