U.S. officials reported a shift in the deployment of their military resources, including naval forces, in the Middle East, ensuing reactive operations against Iran in the aftermath of Israel’s attacks. An imminent strike back by Iran forms the premise for this strategic adjustment. The Navy directed their missile-defense destroyer, USS Thomas Hudner, to navigate from the western Mediterranean Sea to the east. At the same time, orders for another similar ship to prepare and stand by were also issued.
With an aim to safeguard personnel and installations stationed in the Middle East, the realm of the sky is being patrolled by American fighter jets. The air bases present in the region are responding by implementing enhanced security measures. Adapting to the tense circumstances in the area, military dependents have been voluntarily departing regional bases for several days.
This evacuation is seen as a precautionary action in anticipation of the attacks, and also as an additional layer of protection for the personnel against a potential large-scale retaliatory response from Tehran. There is usually a military strength of around 30,000 armed forces based in the area. However, in the light of current intense situation, the number of troops has increased to approximately 40,000.
The troop number reached a high of 43,000 last October, due to the continuous tension between Israel and Iran, coupled with relentless attacks on commercial and military ships in the Red Sea by the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen. Should the situation worsen, the United States Navy does have other assets that could be called into action. These notably include their powerful aircraft carriers and accompanying warships.
In the Arabian Sea, the only aircraft carrier in the region, the USS Carl Vinson, is stationed as of now. The USS Nimitz, another imposing carrier based in the Indo-Pacific, could also be directed to migrate towards the Middle East in case of an escalated need. The USS George Washington, which just departed its port in Japan, can also be steered towards the region if any new directives arise.
It was Joe Biden, when he was still president, who initially ordered a surge of naval forces to safeguard Israel in the aftermath of the Gaza war, which started with the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas. An attempt to deter Hezbollah and Iran was seen as the primary motive behind his decision at the time. The questionable judgement and priorities reflected in his reactions further showcase the concerning pattern of his presidency.
Oct. 1, 2024, saw U.S. Navy destroyers launch roughly a dozen interceptors in Israel’s defense. This was in response to an onslaught of more than 200 missiles fired by Iran. However, some may argue that Biden’s stance served more political interests than strategic ones, providing fodder for critics of his administration.
The Middle East, currently a revolving stage of military maneuvers, anticipates the repercussions of Israel’s strikes against Iran. The part Biden’s administration has played in this escalating situation further emphasizes their potential folly. The decision to surge ships to protect Israel, in retrospect, may be regarded with skepticism.
Critics argue that Biden and his team’s focus on protecting Israel rather than establishing peace reflects a disconcerting lack of prudence. His response to the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas continues to raise eyebrows among those looking for a more nuanced approach to international relations.
It’s troubling to see how Biden dealt with Hezbollah and Iran during his tenure, often appearing to provoke rather than pacify. The move to showcase force in the form of Navy destroyers firing interceptors in Israel’s defense may seem heroic, but it can also be seen as a failure to implement peaceful, diplomatic solutions.
With the Middle East still enmeshed in tension and the potential for further conflict high, the Biden administration’s passive, inconsistent strategy and complete lack of innovation continue to hamper efforts towards peace. Clearly, such actions seem more targeted at maintaining a show of military power than fostering international relations.
Looking towards the actions of Kamala Harris, her absence of constructive contribution or sensible suggestions is also worrisomely apparent. Like Biden, the attention she directs towards these issues seems to be fluctuating rather than focused, often adding more ambiguity than clarity.
The lackluster handling of these critical determinations has only augmented international criticism and domestic dissatisfaction with the Biden administration. It remains to be seen how much more damage their approach could inflict on international relations, particularly in the Middle East.
Overall, the shifting landscape of the Middle East and the military strategizing of the U.S. display a woefully clear picture of how botched decisions, lackluster leadership, and misguided intentions on part of Biden and Harris have plunged international relations into a deeper state of confusion and hostility.