The US confused the drone that killed three of its soldiers in Jordan with its own

The confusion of an enemy drone with one of its own that was returning to the base at that time appears to have been the factor that allowed the attack against a US position in northeastern Jordan this Sunday, in which three US soldiers and 40 others died. They were injured, according to military commanders.

The incident, the first to leave US soldiers dead in a hostile act since the start of the war between Israel and Hamas on October 7, increases pressure on Joe Biden as attacks by pro-Iran militias multiply in the Middle East and the risk of regional escalation appears greater than ever.

According to the version of the American commanders, the return of the American drone to Tower 22, the outpost attacked near the border with Syria, caused confusion among those responsible for the air defense systems, who did not know if the device that was approaching was his.

The doubt caused delays in activating the defense systems.

Two other unmanned aircraft that attacked other American positions were shot down without causing damage, according to the commanders.

More information

War between Israel and Gaza, live

The militia drone attacked the barracks that serve as a residential area within the base, where 350 US soldiers are stationed.

Many of them were sleeping at that time.

In addition to the three deceased, another thirty soldiers were injured in the incident.

This Monday, Biden met with his National Security team at the White House to discuss the situation after the attack in northeastern Jordan, already close to the border with Syria.

Among those in attendance were National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, according to the presidential office.

The coalition of pro-Iran militias in Syria and Iraq known as the Islamic Resistance of Iraq (IRI) declared on Sunday that it had attacked three US positions in Jordan, including the Tower 22 base. Iran, which has denied any involvement in attack on US forces, has described the incident as part of clashes between the US and “resistance groups in the region.”

At the White House press conference, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby declined to confirm that the incident was due to an identification error.

He did assure, as Biden himself had done a day before, that the United States will respond to the attack: “We are not seeking a war with Iran.

We don't want an escalation.

But this weekend's attack was an escalation, there is no doubt about it, and that requires a response.”

That response, he has stressed, will occur: “At the time and place that we choose.”

The Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, who returned to his office at the Pentagon this Monday after recovering from complications from the cancer he suffers, has expressed himself in a similar sense.

“Neither the president nor I will tolerate attacks against American forces, and we will take any action necessary to defend the United States and our troops,” he said, at the beginning of a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

In retaliation, the White House and the Pentagon face a problem that has surrounded them since the beginning of the crisis: how to react with enough force to prevent a repetition of the attacks and, at the same time, with enough moderation to avoid an escalation of unpredictable consequences.

The figures speak.

Since the war between Israel and Hamas began on October 7, US forces have been the target of more than 150 attacks, for which Washington blames pro-Iran groups, in more and more parts of the Middle East, for the launches of Houthi missiles from Yemen to the Red Sea area to drone attacks on their positions in Iraq and Syria.

Added to this are another thirty Houthi attacks against merchant ships.

Until now, the Biden Administration had responded with relative restraint to the blows of these militias.

In Yemen, US strikes alone or in coordination with British forces had been limited to destroying rebel radar or missile sites.

Its retaliatory military actions in Syria had also had similar objectives.

Time and again, Washington has insisted that it sees no signs that Iran has any interest in becoming directly involved in the conflict.

Many analysts see Washington's response after the latest aggression as inevitable, but warn about the consequences.

The United States “will have to respond forcefully to this attack,” considers William Wechsler, former Undersecretary of Defense and currently at the Atlantic Council

think tank

.

But it must ensure that its reaction "minimizes the risk of provoking a broader regional war or of forcing the Government of Iraq to demand the withdrawal of US troops" who still remain stationed in its territory, and over whose future the two governments are negotiating. .

Among the options being considered at the Pentagon, experts point to the seizure of Iranian assets, including ships;

attacking Iranian forces outside or inside that country, or continuing its relatively moderate blows against pro-Iranian militias.

If until now Biden has resisted a direct blow against Tehran, given the risk of a regional escalation, Republican voices are calling for an attack against Iranian territory.

On X, the old Twitter, Senator John Cornyn urged “putting Tehran in the spotlight.”

Later, he specified that he was calling for attacks against the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

“Attack Iran now.

“Attack them hard,” urged Senator Lindsey Graham;

Senator Tom Cotton declared that “the only response to these attacks must be a devastating military retaliation against Iranian terrorist forces, both in Iran and throughout the Middle East.

“Less than that will confirm Joe Biden as a coward who does not deserve to be the [American] commander in chief,” he launched.

On his social network, Truth Social, former president and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump considered: “We are on the brink of World War III.”

For Trump, Sunday's attack constitutes a "tragic and horrible consequence of Joe Biden's weakness and surrender," although he has not called for a specific American response.

Follow all the international information on

Facebook

and

X

, or in

our weekly newsletter

.

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Keep reading

I am already a subscriber

_