Follow us on social

UPDATE: 'Tit-for-tat' after US retaliates against Iranian targets

UPDATE: 'Tit-for-tat' after US retaliates against Iranian targets

F-16s struck what Pentagon said were IRGC-backed militias on Friday.

Analysis | QiOSK

UPDATE 10/28: According to the New York Times Saturday morning, U.S. air defenses shot down a drone new the Al Asad Air Base in western Iraq on Friday, shortly after the U.S. launched retaliatory attacks against Iranian targets in Syria.

There were no injuries or damage on the ground, U.S. officials said on Friday. Pentagon officials also said that rockets were also fired into northern Syria on Friday but landed far from American troops.


The Pentagon announced it conducted F-16 fighter aircraft strikes against Iranian Revolutionary Guard targets in Syria early on Friday.

The targets — military supply depots that an official said were run by the IRGC — were located near Boukamal in the eastern part of the country. The official said the ammo and weapons there were the same used in a string of recent attacks against U.S. troops on bases in Iraq and Syria.

According to the Associated Press: "there had been Iranian-aligned militia and IRGC personnel on the base and no civilians, but the U.S. does not have any information yet on casualties or an assessment of damage. The official would not say how many munitions were launched by the F-16s."

U.S. personnel had come under fire for several days starting Oct. 19 and through last weekend. At least 24 troops sustained minor injuries, including 19 who suffered mild traumatic brain injuries from the blasts. The Biden administration has blamed Iranian backed militias for the attack and it appears now that they believe Iran's elite guards are supplying those fighters. Of course there are concerns that the war in Gaza will spill over into the region and one way it could do that is if U.S. military in Iraq and Syria are triggered into a fight.

In a statement, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III said that the airstrikes were “narrowly tailored strikes in self-defense,” and “do not constitute a shift in our approach to the Israel-Hamas conflict.”

(U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Andy Dunaway/Released)

Analysis | QiOSK
Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine risks losing the war — and the peace

Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine risks losing the war — and the peace

QiOSK

This week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky offered his starkest warning yet about the need for new military aid from the United States.

“It’s important to specifically address the Congress,” Zelensky said. “If the Congress doesn’t help Ukraine, Ukraine will lose the war.”

keep readingShow less
Can the US and Iraq move beyond military ties?

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani attends an event marking the Iraqi Police Day at the Police Faculty in Baghdad, Iraq, January 9, 2024. Murtadha Al-Sudani/Anadolu Agency/Pool via REUTERS / U.S. President Joe Biden arrives for the meeting of European Union (EU) leaders in Brussels, Belgium, March 24, 2022. Alexandros Michailidis via Shutterstock.com

Can the US and Iraq move beyond military ties?

Middle East

Twenty-one years ago, the U.S. and its allies invaded Iraq in the erroneous belief that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction and was allied with al-Qaida, the terror group responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

The U.S. created an occupation authority, but failed to restore order and helped spawn the insurgency that bedeviled it by dismissing the entire Iraqi military and the most experienced civil servants. Coalition troops fought a losing battle, regained their footing with the 2007 troop surge, and finally departed in 2011. U.S. troops returned in 2014 to fight the Islamic State and they remain there to this day, though ISIS was largely eliminated by 2019.

keep readingShow less
South Korean president faces setback in elections

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol casts his early vote for 22nd parliamentary election, in Busan, South Korea, April 5, 2024. Yonhap via REUTERS

South Korean president faces setback in elections

QiOSK

Today, South Korea held its quadrennial parliamentary election, which ended in the opposition liberal party’s landslide victory. The liberal camp, combining the main opposition liberal party and its two sister parties, won enough seats (180 or more) to unilaterally fast-track bills and end filibusters. The ruling conservative party’s defeat comes as no surprise since many South Koreans entered the election highly dissatisfied with the Yoon Suk-yeol administration and determined to keep the government in check.

What does this mean for South Korea’s foreign policy for the remaining three years of the Yoon administration? Traditionally, parliamentary elections have tended to have little effect on the incumbent government’s foreign policy. However, today’s election may create legitimate domestic constraints on the Yoon administration’s foreign policy primarily by shrinking Yoon’s political capital and legitimacy to implement his foreign policy agenda.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest