3 US service members were killed and 30+ injured by a drone strike in Jordan near Syria border. Biden has said U.S. will respond. What will that response be? Answers can be added if in line with the question and not basic things like "talk about it". All valid responses that occur will be paid out (i.e. can be multiple things)
Note 1/30: Also will remove and resolve as "n/a" political answers that are clearly not attempting to be valid responses
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ135 | |
| 2 | Ṁ54 | |
| 3 | Ṁ53 | |
| 4 | Ṁ23 | |
| 5 | Ṁ22 |
@Hyperstition I am not seeing any info on this or what it truly means. I am suspecting it thus has not happened, but please correct me if I am wrong and provide info
@JRR You're right, hasn't happened yet. Daftar is the diplomatic 'protecting power' that tends to the needs of Iranian citizens in the United States while formal diplomatic relations remain under suspension. Passport renewals, that kind of thing.
resolving "yes" per U.S. press releases that cite the death of U.S. soldiers by drones as one of the reasons for sanctioning entities considered a front for Iran military https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2073
resolving "yes" per U.S. press releases that cite the death of U.S. soldiers by drones as one of the reasons for sanctioning entities linked to Iranian military groups: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2073
New sanctions were imposed on officers and officials in the IRGC. Whether that counts as Iran or an Iran-backed military group is your discretion, I suppose. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/us/politics/us-iran-sanctions-charges.html
All: I resolved "Military action against Iran" as N/A as I think both sides have a legitimate argument. Iran the country was not attacked, but Iranian forces stationed in other countries were specifically targeted. As my answer was not sufficiently clear to distinguish this, I think fairest is return the mana for the question.
@Arky great question. I would consider attacks within Iran (the country) or of official sites outside of the country (e.g. an Iranian military base, embassy, etc) to qualify. I would not consider a strike in a country outside of Iran or an Iran facility that happens to cause a few Iranian troop casualties to be "military action against Iran". For example, a strike at Houtis in Yemen that happens to kill a military member(s) of Iran who happened to be in the area would not count.
@Arky doing some research, I think the current state of affairs is too unclear to make a determination. The strikes seem to target the QUDS forces, but unclear if it was Iran facilities or at militia facilities. I am going to resolve as n/a since I don't think my question was clear enough
Resolves YES
Two American officials said the United States also conducted cyberoperations against Iranian targets on Friday but declined to provide details.
@jack @MarcusAbramovitch or other mods might want to have a look at this. Market creator voids an answer because it is "political," despite the market being in the Politics category. Market creator seems to want a rewording more to his own liking, but never contacted me about rewording before voiding it.
@GazDownright what is a rewording you would like to include that is not currently already an option? I am happy to include a response that is legitimate and in line with the question. Similarly, I wouldn't accept a response like "drop 10k nuclear missiles on Iran" either. Ignoring the fact that your question clearly was about an unrelated issue, I am looking for reasonably likely responses, not every possible outcome under the sun. Further, it must be items not already covered ("dropping 10k nuclear missiles on iran" is already covered by "military action against Iran")
@JRR You display a habit of using "clearly" when you put words in other people's mouths. I suggest you close the "add answer" option since your alternatives allready "cover everything." Remember it was you who asked me for a rewording. In my opinion "military tsttacks" is too vague.
@Gaz if you meant your response to be a legitimate and valid response, it could have been phrased as "a full scale military invasion" or something along those lines, not how you phrased it, which was clearly meant to be inciting and political. it was thus not a legitimate or reasonable response to the question. Further, that position is already covered by "military action against Iran" or "Military action against iran-backed militia" (if it is another country) and thus did not add to the answers already provided.