The Washington Post: The withdrawal of US forces from the Middle East is “unlikely”

The Washington Post: The withdrawal of US forces from the Middle East is “unlikely”


The Washington Post - The withdrawal of US forces from the Middle East is unlikelyThe Washington Post ruled out the United States withdrawing its forces from the Middle East at the present time.

A report by the newspaper indicated that US President Joe Biden, whose political experience exceeds 50 years, is fully aware of the difficulties, tensions and competition in the region, and that he is able to carefully balance how to deter Iran, and how to respond in a way that shows firmness and determination to protect American forces, with a focus on To avoid expanding the conflict.

However, the report considered that Biden finds it difficult to stop the United States’ involvement in wars.

The report indicated that Biden was one of the main players within the US administration that launched a generation of open military interventions in the Middle East and South Asia, pointing at the same time to his statement upon his country’s withdrawal from Afghanistan that “the time has come to close the war file forever.”

The report said, “Regardless of the purpose of Biden’s claims in 2021, he was able to end the war in Afghanistan that lasted for decades and exhausted the American people and resources. However, what is surprising is that Biden himself decided, a few days ago, to plunge again into the sprawling battlefields in a new, similar era.” What happened after September 11,” referring to the recent US strikes on targets in Iraq and Syria.

The report explained that Biden justified this “punitive measure” as being necessary to respond to the attacks that claimed the lives of American soldiers, saying, “If you harm an American, we will respond.”

In this context, the report pointed out that the White House described the strikes on Houthi militia sites in Yemen, in which the British also participated, as a deterrent against the militia’s attacks on maritime traffic in the Red Sea, which is a vital artery for global trade.

The report continued that the strikes, whose ability analysts doubted to achieve major strategic goals, sparked, as expected, a new wave of regional anger.

In its monitoring of regional reactions to these strikes, the newspaper noted that the Houthi militia said that it would “face escalation with escalation,” and an Iranian Foreign Ministry official accused the United States and Britain of “provoking chaos, turmoil, insecurity, and instability.”

It also indicated that the Iraqi government spokesman said that Biden’s actions “put security in Iraq and the region on the brink of an abyss,” and expressed his regret. Because his country was a “battlefield for settling scores.”

The report quoted Spencer Ackerman, a veteran historian of the post-September 11 wars in the Middle East, as saying that some see Biden as less violent than his critics, but he linked his policy to factors of provocation and that every escalation leads to a corresponding escalation.

Ackerman added: “Biden still has time to rein in Israel and find a way to negotiate with Iran, but not much, before we cross the threshold,” referring to tensions that threaten to explode in the region.

On the other hand, others, such as John Hoffman, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, believe that “America’s presence and policies in the Middle East do not deter violence, nor lead to stability in the region,” according to the newspaper.

“Washington must end its pointless tit-for-tat military skirmishes with Iranian-backed groups in the Middle East and bring American forces home,” Hoffman said.