Follow us on social

google cta
Original

Update: Tit-for-tat attack after US launches airstrikes in Syria

This comes within days of failed attempts by lawmakers to strip the White House of blanket authorities and to bring American troops home.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

UPDATE 3/25: There are news reports Saturday that at least two U.S. facilities in Syria were under attack late Friday, a day after the U.S. launched airstrikes against Iranian Revolutionary Guard targets in the eastern part of the country.

According to ABC News and Al Jazeera, U.S. officials said there were attacks on two facilities in Deir ez-Zor Province in eastern Syria — one involved drones, the other involved rockets. The drones were shot down (one reportedly made it through), but the rocket attack at the other U.S. facility left one American servicemember wounded and in stable condition.

There have been around 80 such attacks reported against U.S. troops in Syria since 2021.


The Defense Department said late Thursday that it had launched a series of airstrikes in eastern Syria after a drone attack killed one U.S. contractor and injured five soldiers operating on a coalition base in northeastern Syria. An additional U.S. contractor was also hurt in the attack.

According to a statement by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, the Americans conducted precision airstrikes in eastern Syria against facilities used by Iran's Revolutionary Guard (IRGC).

"At the direction of President Biden, I authorized U.S. Central Command forces to conduct precision airstrikes tonight in eastern Syria against facilities used by groups affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)," he said. "The airstrikes were conducted in response to today’s attack as well as a series of recent attacks against Coalition forces in Syria by groups affiliated with the IRGC."

These precision strikes, said the DoD, "are intended to protect and defend U.S. personnel. The United States took proportionate and deliberate action intended to limit the risk of escalation and minimize casualties."

The statement said the intelligence community had determined that the drone had been of "Iranian origin," but did not say why the IRGC had been pinpointed as responsible for the attacks.

As of December, there were 900 U.S. troops in the country where they continue to conduct operations against ISIS but have been targeted for years now by what U.S. officials say are Iranian-backed militias.

According to CBS News, the American strikes reportedly killed six Iranian-backed fighters at an arms depot in the Harabesh neighborhood in the eastern city of Deir el-Zour, another two fighters in Mayadeen, and a strike hit a military post near the town of Boukamal along the border with Iraq. CBS was relying on the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and these reports could not be independently verified.

According to Reuters, the Iranians are denying any deaths connected to the U.S. airstrikes:

Iran's state Press TV, saying no Iranian had been killed in the attack, quoted local sources as denying the target was an Iran-aligned military post, but that a rural development center and a grain center near a military airport were hit.

It said: "A military source in Syria told Press TV that the resistance groups reserve their right to respond to the American attack and will take reciprocal action."

In early March Gen. Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a surprise visit to the troops in Syria, where the U.S. has had a military presence for eight years. He tied the mission there to the security of the U.S. and said the risk of keeping troops there was "worth" the "enduring defeat of ISIS and continuing to support our friends and allies in the region."

Not everyone thinks that mission is as clear and the risk as important. Recently Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) offered a bill for vote in the House that would bring U.S. troops home from the region. Even with help from the Congressional Progressive Caucus and other Republicans, it failed 321-103 on March 8.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has also tried in recent says to push a measure that would repeal the 2001 AUMF which he says is used to justify operations there, as well as a number of other overseas interventions since the law was passed in the wake of 9/11, 20 years ago. He says it should be up to Congress whether to continue these operations, not the sole authority of the White House. His amendment failed 86-9 in the Senate on Thursday.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

U.S. Northern Command personnel move medical supplies for distribution at New York's Javits Medical Station as part of the U.S. military's COVID-19 response (U.S. Army Photo by Pvt. 1st Class Nathaniel Gayle)
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Trump
Top image credit: President Donald Trump addresses the nation, Wednesday, December 17, 2025, from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump national security logic: rare earths and fossil fuels

Washington Politics

The new National Security Strategy of the United States seeks “strategic stability” with Russia. It declares that China is merely a competitor, that the Middle East is not central to American security, that Latin America is “our hemisphere,” and that Europe faces “civilizational erasure.”

India, the world's largest country by population, barely rates a mention — one might say, as Neville Chamberlain did of Czechoslovakia in 1938, it’s “a faraway country... of which we know nothing.” Well, so much the better for India, which can take care of itself.

keep readingShow less
Experts at oil & weapons-funded think tank: 'Go big' in Venezuela
Top image credit: LightField Studios via shutterstock.com

Experts at oil & weapons-funded think tank: 'Go big' in Venezuela

Military Industrial Complex

As the U.S. threatens to take “oil, land and other assets” from Venezuela, staffers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank funded in part by defense contractors and oil companies, are eager to help make the public case for regime change and investment. “The U.S. should go big” in Venezuela, write CSIS experts Ryan Berg and Kimberly Breier.

Both America’s Quarterly, which published the essay, and the authors’ employer happen to be funded by the likes of Lockheed Martin and ExxonMobil, a fact that is not disclosed in the article.

keep readingShow less
ukraine military
UKRAINE MARCH 22, 2023: Ukrainian military practice assault tactics at the training ground before counteroffensive operation during Russo-Ukrainian War (Shutterstock/Dymtro Larin)

Ukraine's own pragmatism demands 'armed un-alignment'

Europe

Eleven months after returning to the White House, the Trump administration believes it has finally found a way to resolve the four-year old war in Ukraine. Its formula is seemingly simple: land for security guarantees.

Under the current plan—or what is publicly known about it—Ukraine would cede the 20 percent of Donetsk that it currently controls to Russia in return for a package of security guarantees including an “Article 5-style” commitment from the United States, a European “reassurance force” inside post-war Ukraine, and peacetime Ukrainian military of 800,000 personnel.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.