Follow us on social

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

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.


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)
Analysis | Middle East
Israel Palestine U.S.
Top Image Credit: Shutterstock/Hapelinium

Gallup Poll: American sympathy for Israelis lowest on record

QiOSK

New Gallup polling indicates that, for the first time, a minority of Americans — only 46% — are sympathetic toward Israelis. The percentage is the lowest recorded in Gallup’s 25 years of tracking the issue via its annual World Affairs Survey.

While the polling shows that Americans are more sympathetic toward Israelis over Palestinians overall (46% vs. 33%), U.S. adults are reporting they are more sympathetic toward Palestinians, up 6% from last year.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: noamgalai / Shutterstock.com

Gaza ceasefire hits the brick wall of Netanyahu's agenda

Middle East

The cease-fire agreement on the Gaza Strip is on the verge of dissolving, for reasons that were predictable when the agreement was reached in January.

To follow an initial six-week phase, which has just concluded, the agreement envisioned second and third phases that would see the additional release of hostages by both sides, Israeli military withdrawals from the Strip, and a reconstruction plan. But those parts of the agreement were mere outlines or statements of objectives, with further negotiations needed to resolve all the details.

keep readingShow less
Elissa Slotkin
Top image credit: Mar 4, 2025; Wyandotte, MI, USA; Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., rehearses the Democratic response to President Donald Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday, March 4, 2025, in Wyandotte, Mich. Mandatory Credit: Paul Sancya-Pool via Imagn Images

Dems stuck in a hole on foreign policy

Washington Politics

In 2024, the Democratic Party ran a campaign that explicitly embraced Washington’s tired national security orthodoxy. Presidential nominee Kamala Harris campaigned alongside hawkish former GOP Congresswoman Liz Cheney and welcomed the endorsement of her father, Dick.

Meanwhile, the campaign refused to distance itself from the Biden administration’s unconditional support for Israel’s war on Gaza or its failed Ukraine policy. The party’s platform attacked Donald Trump, who, during his first term, brought the country to the brink of war with Iran, as being too soft on the Islamic Republic. The strategy ultimately proved ineffective.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

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.