US strikes Iranian targets in Iraq and Syria after Jordan base drone attack

Biden's retaliation strikes Iranian targets in Iraq and Syria

The highly anticipated nighttime operation unfolded in phases. The United States launched attacks against Iranian targets in Iraq and Syria in response to a drone strike that killed US military personnel at a base in northeastern Jordan, and Joe Biden warned that the response would "continue at times and places we choose." Hours earlier, Washington had leaked that it would be a "multi-day" action against "multiple targets," described as "very deliberate."

For those watching with a calculator in hand, the relevant data is not how many explosions occurred, but where the escalation stops. Three questions remain unresolved: whether the strike is limited to militias or reaches Iranian soil, what happens to traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, and how much of this ends up at the pump.

What is known about the attack on the US base in Jordan

The device that hit the base was an Iranian Shahed-type drone, according to information released after the attack. The explanation for the detection failure is as uncomfortable as it is simple: the drone entered at the same moment another US aircraft was returning to the base, and confusion over whether it was friendly or hostile delayed the reaction. This narrative has sparked debate, albeit not in the best sense: some see it as a deliberate setup.

The other half comes from the Iraqi Army's warning that US bombings on its territory will have "unforeseen consequences" and "disastrous repercussions" for the region. Above all remains the framework summarized by Secretary of State Antony Blinken: the situation in the Middle East is the most dangerous since at least 1973.

Will the US attack Iran or only its militias?

This was the question ordering all predictions before the outcome was known. The soft scenario involves hitting armed groups' bases in Iraq and, eventually, Syria. The hard scenario involves directly attacking Iran. The difference is not rhetorical: in the first case, the episode is presented as equivalent to the attack Iran launched days earlier against bases of hostile armed groups, an exchange with tacit rules. In the second, the matter complicates.

The most repeated analysis holds that a direct strike on Iran opens a serious confrontation, without necessarily leading to a global conflict, whereas limiting action to militias keeps the chapter in a seen-take-and-give dynamic.

Hormuz, gasoline, and the bill no one wants to pay

Here appears the part that touches the pocket. In a later phase of the issue, pressure shifted to the Strait of Hormuz: world powers were urged to send warships to keep it open, and further bombings of the Iranian coast were promised, according to ABC. A maritime passage through which much of the Gulf's crude oil circulates, which, if jammed, does not understand communiqués.

The thread reveals a scenario where gasoline approaches 3 euros per liter. The skeptical rebuttal has its humor: if Iran is eventually warned 48 hours in advance and two projectiles are launched in an empty Syrian field 15 kilometers from any militiaman, the market will take it for what it is, a gesture. The energy risk premium rises with each headline, not with each explosion.

The Sunni axis, China, and the wear of the unipolar order

There is a less noisy and much more uncomfortable reading for the West. What bolsters Western interests in the region would not be military bases, but the Sunni-Shia fracture that Washington and Tel Aviv have cultivated for decades. This fracture is cracking: the Sunni spectrum has seen the game after what peine in Gaza, Iran consolidates as a regional power, and Saudi Arabia moves closer to China. Gulf countries are already sensing this.

Hence the repeated conclusion: an aerial operation fixes none of this, and defending the Western position in the zone becomes an expensive idea. The other side of the coin is the wear of the narrative: if the adversary challenges you and you do not respond in their home, the label of world gendarme starts to look too big.

The "false flag" thesis circulating without proof

A part of the coverage interprets the confusion between drones as a deliberate setup. It must be said clearly: there is no evidence supporting this version, and the official explanation—two aircraft coinciding in the same airspace—is the only documented one. Suspicionism is free; evidence is not.

The same applies to other theories about who pulls the strings. Entanglement interests, it is argued, and controlled instability is business for some. When asked for names, the usual response is a vague gesture and a reference to diffuse interests.

With the calendar in hand, the sequence was thus: announcement of retaliation, phased execution in Iraq and Syria, and a warning from Baghdad about what is to come. What remains unclosed is the usual. Nothing happens until something happens. And when it does, the one who warned continues waiting for recognition.