President Joe Biden justified his decision to strike Syria in a letter to congressional leadership on Saturday. 

On Thursday night, Biden directed airstrikes against the assets of "Iranian-backed militant groups" in Syria. 

In his letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and President pro tempore of the Senate Patrick Leahy, Biden said the strike was "pursuant to the United States' inherent right of self-defense as reflected in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter."

The Pentagon said the move came after a series of recent attacks against US and coalition forces in Iraq. Last week, a contractor was killed and others were injured after militants fired rockets at an Iraqi airbase used by the US military.

Biden referenced the attack to justify the strike. 

"In response, I directed this military action to protect and defend our personnel and our partners against these attacks and future such attacks," he wrote. "The United States always stands ready to take necessary and proportionate action in self-defense, including when, as is the case here, the government of the state where the threat is located is unwilling or unable to prevent the use of its territory by non-state militia groups responsible for such attacks. 

Biden also said he was providing the report as part of his "efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution," which says presidents have 48 hours after taking military action to inform Congress. 

Biden faced criticism from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, many of whom questioned his authority to launch the strikes. 

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, tweeted: "We ran on ending wars, not escalating conflicts in the Middle East. Our foreign policy needs to be rooted in diplomacy & the rule of law, not retaliatory air strikes without Congressional authorization."

Members of Congress have previously pushed to repeal the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force (AUMFs), which were enacted after 9/11 and gave presidents the authority to wage war around the world, Insider's John Haltiwanger and Ryan Pickrell previously reported.

Have a news tip? Contact this reporter at salarshani@insider.com 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A cleaning expert reveals her 3-step method for cleaning your entire home quickly

An Iraqi base hosting US troops was targeted with at least 10 rockets on Wednesday, a US-led coalition spokesperson said. The attack came less than a week after President Joe Biden ordered airstrikes in Syria that the Pentagon suggested would end attacks on US forces in the region. 

Wednesday's incident is still being investigated, but there are no reports of casualties among US troops and no one has claimed responsibility. An American contractor died of a heart attack at the base where the rockets hit while sheltering, the Pentagon said.

The attack resembles similar incidents in which US forces in Iraq have been targeted by Iran-backed Shiite militias such as Kataib Hezbollah.

The Biden administration has blamed these militias for recent attacks in Iraq, including a February 15 attack on a US-led coalition base in Irbil (in Kurdish-led northern Iraq) that killed a foreign contractor, wounded a US soldier, and wounded several US contractors. 

The Syria strikes, which targeted facilities used by Iranian-backed militias operating just across the Iraqi border, were a retaliatory action for the Irbil attack that the Pentagon said represented a "proportionate military response" that would help ease tensions.

The Pentagon said that the strikes killed one fighter in an Iranian-backed militia, while wounding two others. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a London-based monitoring group, said that at least 22 Iranian-backed militia members were killed in the strikes, which marked the first major military action of Biden's presidency. 

"We have acted in a deliberate manner that aims to de-escalate the overall situation in both eastern Syria and Iraq," Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said in a statement on the February 25 strikes. 

But the attack on Wednesday could suggest that Biden's Syria strikes did anything but "de-escalate," though it remains unclear who's responsible. 

The latest attack came amid tensions with Iran

Wednesday's incident also occurred at Al-Asad air base — where US troops were targeted by Iran in early 2020 after then-President Donald Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani — the country's top military leader.

And it came as Biden vies to restore the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which Trump abandoned in May 2018. The deal imposed restrictions that aimed to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon in exchange for relief from economic sanctions.

After pulling from the deal, Trump reimposed sanctions and pursued a "maximum pressure" campaign against Tehran, aiming to cripple Iran's economy and squeeze Iranian leaders into negotiating a more stringent version of the 2015 pact. Trump's strategy did not work out, and instead helped raise tensions between Iran and the US to historic heights — sparking fears of a new war in the Middle East. 

The 2015 nuclear deal was negotiated under the Obama administration, when Biden was vice president. During his campaign, Biden made returning to the 2015 deal a top foreign policy priority. But reviving the deal has already proven to be a major challenge for Biden. 

Iran has maintained that it will not return to compliance with the agreement until the US scraps sanctions. Meanwhile, the Biden administration has stated there will be no sanctions relief until Iran shows that it is in compliance with the agreement. Biden has signaled that he is willing to hold diplomatic talks with Iran in concert with European allies, but much is still up in the air and the future of the nuclear pact remains uncertain. 

In this context, Iran could be motivated to target US troops in Iraq in order to ramp up pressure on Washington to ease sanctions. At the same time, such an approach could backfire and push the Biden administration away from diplomacy. 

Biden on Friday told reporters the Syria strikes were meant to send a message to Iran: "You can't act with impunity, be careful." Iran has denied any involvement in the Irbil attack, though experts have said it's unlikely anyone other than Tehran was behind it.

Douglas Silliman, US ambassador to Iraq from 2016 to 2019, told NBC News last month, "I have no doubt who's behind it. It is the Iranian-supported Iraqi Shia militias who are behind this."

Moreover, a militia group with ties to Iran, Awliya al-Dam, claimed credit for the fatal Irbil incident.

Setting aside Iran's possible involvement or the motivations behind the Syria strikes, Biden has faced bipartisan criticism for not seeking congressional approval prior to giving the order. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We tested a machine that brews beer at the push of a button

With strike aircraft already in the air and on their way to the targets, President Joe Biden made last-minute changes to the plans for his first major military order as commander in chief to avoid killing a woman and children, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

Last week, Biden directed the US military to carry out a strike against facilities in Syria used by Iran-backed militias who executed a series of rocket attacks in Iraq that killed and wounded US and coalition personnel.

The Pentagon said in a statement that "the operation sends an unambiguous message: President Biden will act to protect American and coalition personnel."

Though there have been other military operations since Biden took office, the strikes marked the first known military action the president personally directed.

Two F-15E Strike Eagles dropped seven precision-guided munitions that completely destroyed nine facilities and damaged two others at a location in Abu-Kamal along the Iraq-Syria border.

The targets were chosen deliberately to cripple militia operations, as well as send a message to Iran, but not to leave behind a significant number of casualties.

The Journal reported Thursday that the plan was initially to strike more targets, but Biden, with Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin's guidance, changed plans with the strike aircraft only about 30 minutes out from the target after intelligence spotted a woman with children in a courtyard.

The battlefield intelligence indicating the presence of a woman with children in the strike area was relayed to the president by national security advisor Jake Sullivan. Biden then had to make a decision to call off the airstrikes or hit only one of the two targets.

Biden opted for the latter. Bombs fell over the lone target about 1:30 a.m. in Syria.

In the aftermath, the president made his message to the Iran-backed militias and Iran clear in a public statement, saying: "You can't act with impunity. Be careful."

The Biden administration began planning its response shortly after a rocket attack in mid-February that killed a coalition contractor and wounded at least seven Americans, including a US service member.

On Thursday morning last week, Biden met with senior officials in the Situation Room, where he was presented with a selection of retaliatory actions. The president's choice was the most conservative of the available options, The Journal reported.

Biden's decision to alter his plans to prevent the undesired killing of a woman and children is consistent with other administration actions, such as the decision to curtail drone strikes outside active war zones amid a policy review looking, in part, at whether steps need to be taken to better prevent the unintentional killing of civilians.

The airstrike in Syria killed one militia member and wounded two others. The Pentagon said the strike achieved its goals when questioned about whether the strikes were a sufficient response.

"This was really designed to do two things: to remove that compound from their utilization of it as an entry control point from Syria into Iraq, and two, to send a very strong signal that we're not going to tolerate attacks on our people and on our Iraqi partners," Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said on Monday.

Though the airstrike was intended to prevent rocket attacks, Al Asad Airbase in Iraq came under fire Wednesday.

No one was killed by the 10 rockets fired at the base, but a US civilian contractor suffered a heart attack while sheltering and later died. The Biden administration is still considering what its response will be as an investigation continues.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why thoroughbred horse semen is the world's most expensive liquid

President Joe Biden intends to work with congressional lawmakers to repeal laws passed in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks that effectively gave every commander-in-chief since a blank check to wage war, the White House said on Friday, per Politico.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki in a statement said Biden wants to "ensure that the authorizations for the use of military force currently on the books are replaced with a narrow and specific framework that will ensure we can protect Americans from terrorist threats while ending the forever wars."

The authorizations for use of military force (AUMF) on the table for repeal include the 2001 AUMF and 2002 AUMF. 

The 2001 AUMF was passed only days after 9/11 with overwhelming support in Congress — there was only one dissenting vote. It authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."

Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump interpreted this law broadly to conduct military actions across the globe. The 2001 AUMF — the linchpin of the global war on terror — has been used to justify at least 41 military operations in 19 countries. It opened the door for the invasion of Afghanistan, launching the longest war in US history — which has lasted for nearly two decades.

The 2002 AUMF, which was approved in October 2002, paved the way for the US invasion of Iraq. Trump cited the 2002 AUMF to justify a drone strike that killed Iran's top general, Qassem Soleimani, a strike that brought the countries to the brink of war. 

The law authorized the president "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to — (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Biden voted in favor of both laws as a senator, later stating it was a mistake to support the Iraq invasion.

During the Trump era, there were growing bipartisan calls for presidential war powers to be reined in. Many in Congress felt they'd abdicated their constitutional role in declaring war via laws such as the military authorizations passed after 9/11.

These sentiments have carried on into the Biden era, with a bipartisan group of senators unveiling a bill earlier this week to repeal the 2002 AUMF as well as a 1991 authorization prior to the first Iraq war (Gulf War). The bill, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, was introduced less than a week after Biden ordered airstrikes in Syria targeting Iran-backed militias. 

Kaine and other lawmakers from both parties have expressed concern about Biden's Syria strikes, questioning their legality. The Biden administration did not lean on the 2001 or 2002 AUMF in defense of the action. It justified the strikes based on Article II of the Constitution, which designates the president as commander-in-chief of the military, and principles of self-defense under international law. But lawmakers have still expressed anger that congressional approval was not sought prior to the strikes. 

The Biden administration would work closely with lawmakers like Kaine in terms of the effort to repeal the post-9/11 military authorizations. 

"Tim Kaine has been a leader on questions of war powers throughout his time in the Senate," Psaki said in her statement, via Politico, "and has helped build a strong bipartisan coalition that understands the importance of Congress's constitutional prerogatives."

A spokesperson for Kaine told Politico the senator "believes that President Biden, who has a deep understanding of both congressional and executive responsibilities, is in a unique position to help America restore balance in how we make decisions about war and peace." The spokesperson said Kaine is already "in bipartisan discussion with his colleagues and the administration."

America's global war on terror has killed over 800,000 people in direct war violence, according to Brown University's Costs of War project, and the US government places the cost of the vast, convoluted conflict at over $6.4 trillion. The war, which will officially enter its 20th year in October, has also displaced at least 37 million people. Repealing laws like the 2001 AUMF and 2002 AUMF could help bring an end to the war on terror, or at least drastically limit the scope of US counterterrorism operations.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We tested a machine that brews beer at the push of a button

"Diplomacy is back!" declared President Joe Biden at the Munich Security Conference on February 4. Three weeks later, a pair of American F-15 fighter jets were dropping bombs on Syria — so much for diplomacy.

According to Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby, the February 25 strike, which targeted facilities in eastern Syria used by Iran-backed Iraqi militias, was "authorized in response to recent attacks against American and Coalition personnel in Iraq, and to ongoing threats to those personnel." The attack was ordered without Congressional authorization and came only ten days after a February 15 rocket attack in northern Iraq killed a civilian contractor and injured a US service member and other Coalition personnel. According to a medical source at a local hospital who spoke to Reuters, the recent US strike killed at least seventeen people. 

Analysts suggest the February 25 strike was intended to strengthen the US's position in negotiations with Iran over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or the Iran Nuclear Deal, which the US withdrew from under President Donald Trump. Biden has promised to re-enter the accord. 

But the strike threatens to kick off a dangerous back-and-forth. It's bad news for negotiations with Iran and a far cry from the diplomatic approach that Biden promised.

Sabatoging Iran talks before they even get started

Following the strike, Kirby also claimed that it was meant to "de-escalate the overall situation in both eastern Syria and Iraq." But it will come as no surprise that the Syrian government thought the opposite in the wake of the surprise attack on its soil. 

On February 26, the Syrian Foreign Ministry released a statement calling the action a violation of international law and claiming that it "will lead to consequences that will escalate the situation in the region." Russia, one of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's foremost allies, said it was given only minutes' notice before the strikes. A spokesperson for the nation's federation council warned that continued similar actions in the region could lead to "a massive conflict." 

A yet-unclaimed March 3 missile attack on the Ain al-Asad airbase in western Iraq tracks with the Syrian and Russian evaluations of the situation. The airbase is one of the few Iraqi bases where US troops remain stationed. According to a Pentagon press release, no US service members were injured in the attack, however, a US civilian contractor died after suffering a cardiac episode while sheltering. 

It remains an open question whether Biden will again respond with force. When asked about the prospect of a military response in a press briefing, Kirby told reporters that "If we determine a response is necessary, we will do so at a time and manner of our choosing." 

What is sure is that continued military escalation in the region is counterproductive. If the Biden administration hopes to revive the JCPOA, it should instead be focused on reducing tensions and facilitating the best possible atmosphere for negotiations with Iran. Biden should know that. He should understand the danger of making sudden decisions in the region. After all, he criticized Trump's "erratic, impulsive decisions" while on the campaign trail and advocated for a more measured approach. 

Not the diplomacy Americans want

Responses to the strike among US politicians varied. Some key members of the Republican party welcomed the attack. GOP Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, tweeted that the strike was "targeted, proportional and necessary." GOP Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Republican on the House of Representatives' foreign affairs committee, characterized it as a reminder to "Iran, its proxies, and [US] adversaries around the world that attacks on US interests will not be tolerated." 

Some Democrats also praised the action, including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who called it "a strong act" sure to "send a message to Tehran."

Others were wiser. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, and Rep. Ro Khanna of California condemned the strikes. Khanna tweeted, "We cannot stand up for Congressional authorization before military strikes only when there is a Republican President… We need to work to extricate from the Middle East, not escalate." 

Khanna is right in pointing out that when Trump ordered strikes without first consulting Congress, Democrats — some of them now members of the Biden administration — were quick to protest. Notably, Jen Psaki, current White House press secretary, questioned Trump's authority to order airstrikes without Congressional approval back in 2017, tweeting, "What is the legal authority for strikes? Assad is a brutal dictator. But Syria is a sovereign country." 

Americans should be asking the same question today. We should also be asking whether maintaining US troops in the Middle East really makes Americans safer. Or does it only distract from other foreign policy priorities? 

Thus far, Biden's actions in the Middle East have neglected the desires of his foreign partners, undermined the interests of US personnel stationed in the region, and disregarded the opinion of most Americans — 73% of whom believe that good diplomacy is the best way to ensure peace.

Far from having brought diplomacy back, Biden has resorted to aggressive use of force in record speed (in contrast, it took Trump four months to order his first airstrikes). He is now poised to sabotage what could be his only chance to revive the nuclear deal that his National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan claimed is a "critical early priority" for his administration. 

The 81 million Americans who backed Biden's commitment to diplomacy in the general election must hold him to account for the recent strike on Syria and his failure to engage sincerely with Iran. A Democrat in the White House must not mean the president has a free pass to forge ahead with US war-making and destabilization in the Middle East. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What makes 'Parasite' so shocking is the twist that happens in a 10-minute sequence

The United States will engage in a "strategic dialogue" with Iraq this month, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said last week. The key agenda item, she explained, was the US combat deployment there.

How or whether to extend the operation should not be part of the discussion. Nailing down details of the withdrawal should.

The 3,500 US troops currently in Iraq serve no purpose related to American national security. They don't have a militarily attainable mission which could be recognized and signal the end of the deployment. The only benefactor is the government in Baghdad and even they are ready to show America the exit.

Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi told reporters in Iraq he is approaching April's dialogue with Washington as a chance to push for the withdrawal of American troops. He cited what he considered a positive outcome from the June 2020 strategic dialogue with the US in which Iraq "succeeded in reducing the size of the US combat forces in Iraq by 60%."

In this upcoming meeting, al-Kadhimi added, he will seek the complete "redeployment of [US] forces outside of Iraq." The administration, however, appeared interested in cooling such talk.

At the recent press briefing, Psaki sought to "further clarify that coalition forces are in Iraq solely for the purpose of training and advising Iraqi forces to ensure that ISIS cannot reconstitute." If the troops are not officially engaged in direct combat, some believe, the deployment will be more palatable to the American people.

There is little evidence the US population cares about the nuance, however. Upward of 75% want the troops to return home. Such views are well-founded, as the troops no longer provide even nominal support for US security interests.

The reason troops are in Iraq at all today is because President Barack Obama sent them to help Baghdad fend off the rise of ISIS in the summer of 2014.

When President Donald Trump assumed office, he beefed up the military presence and gave them the mission of helping the Iraqi military (and later Syrian Democratic Forces in Syria) retake the territory ISIS had captured. That mission was completed in Iraq in November 2017 and in Syria in March 2019.

Today ISIS has been driven underground, as is the case with numerous other violent insurgent groups in the Middle East. Though ISIS poses a potential terror threat — as literally scores of other radical groups do — the threat they pose is limited and in any case is not diminished by having a few thousand troops on the ground in either Iraq or Syria.

Lt. Gen. Paul Calvert, commander of the US-led counter-ISIS mission in Iraq and Syria, told Defense One that ISIS's "ability to reemerge is extremely low right now."

What does concern Calvert, however, are the volatile cultural and political conditions in both countries. "It's clear to me and people that I've talked to [in Iraqi government],"Calvert said, "there's a significant amount of concern in terms of the possibilities of an internal Shia civil war." Things in Syria are even worse.

Aside from the ongoing civil war, operating within Syria are Iranian troops fighting alongside Syrian troops, Russian Air Force bombers striking anti-Syrian targets, Russian mercenaries, Shia militias, Kurdish elements Turkey considers terrorists, and Kurdish groups the US considers allies.

American troops have sometimes narrowly avoided armed clashes with Russian combat troops, Syrian troops, and even its NATO-ally Turkey. In somewhat of an understatement, Calvert said the "level of complexity in Syria is immense and is probably one of the most complex environments I have seen in the 33 years that I've been serving."

Whatever incremental security benefit may exist with US troops being deployed in Iraq and Syria, they are dwarfed by the strategic risk we incur every minute we remain on the ground there.

We are in a sea of civil conflict in Syria and in danger of semi-regular rocket attacks in Iraq. Our military presence cannot influence the political outcome in either country.

The best thing Biden can do for the security of the United States and to preserve the lives of our service members from unnecessary risk at the security dialogue with Baghdad is to withdraw our troops, in full, from both Iraq and Syria as soon as possible.

Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow for Defense Priorities and a former lieutenant colonel in the US Army who deployed into combat zones four times. He is the author of "The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America." Follow him @DanielLDavis1.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Russia is so involved in the Syrian Civil War

On April 3, 2021, a P-8A Poseidon aircraft with the Patrol Squadron 46 (VP-46) Grey Knights launched from NAS (Naval Air Station) Sigonella, Italy, carried out a sortie over the eastern Mediterranean Sea, off Syria; a pretty standard mission if it wasn't for the fact that, on its way to the patrol area off Syria, as it flew at low altitude over the sea to the southeast of Cyprus, the Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft drew a giant "46."

The number is a clear reference to the unit, that has been deployed to "Saigon" (as NAS Sigonella is often referred to) on their inaugural P-8A Poseidon deployment to US Sixth Fleet at NAS Sigonella in Sicily, Italy, from their homebase at NAS Whidbey Island, Washington, since the end of November 2020.

As often explained here at The Aviationist, US Navy P-8A Poseidons operating out of Sigonella can be regularly tracked online by means of their ADS-B/Mode-S transponders orbiting off Syria (where a tense close encounter with two Su-35s took place), flying over the Black Sea near Crimea or hunting Russian Navy subs and warships in the western Mediterranean Sea around Gibraltair. They have also been spotted off Libya recently. OSINT analysis on their routes always provides interesting insights into their missions.

However, this was the first time a P-8 "sent a message" to those watching the mission using a browser or a flight tracking app.

The aircrew was certainly aware of being tracked and did it on purpose: They were broadcasting ADS-B as soon as they entered the eastern Med, meaning that they definitely wanted to be seen.

As for the reason for drawing a "46" in the skies, someone speculates it was done to celebrate the end of the deployment.

Whatever, it's a significant improvement since when another US Navy aircrew drew a giant penis contrailing across the clear blue skies of Washington state in their EA-18G Growler from Electronic Attack Squadron 130 (VAQ-130) "The Zappers," out of Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, in 2017.

Dealing with the P-8A, these aircraft regularly fly ISR (Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance) missions across the Med. As explained in a previous post: "These assets are much more than MPA (Maritime Patrol Aircraft): they are multi-mission platforms that can gather valuable intelligence using a wide array of sensors. Among these, an Advanced Airborne Sensor (a dual-sided AESA radar that can offer 360-degree scanning on targets on land or coastal areas, and which has potential applications as a jamming or even cyberwarfare platform according to Northrop Grumman); an APY-10 multi-mode synthetic aperture radar; an MX-20 electro-optical/infrared turret for shorter-range search; and an ALQ-240 Electronic Support Measure (ESM) suite, able to geo-locate and track enemy radar emitters. Moreover, all sensors contribute to a single fused tactical situation display, which is then shared over both military standard and internet protocol data links, allowing for seamless delivery of information amongst US and coalition forces."

The VP-46 is a forward deployed squadron with a detachment in Djibouti, Africa, conducting operations in the African maritime theater too. The squadron is assigned to Commander, Task Force 67, responsible for tactical control of deployed maritime patrol and reconnaissance squadrons throughout Europe and Africa.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The Navy has its own Area 51 and it's right in the middle of the Bahamas

Myanmar is on the verge of a "full-blown conflict," a top United Nations official warned Tuesday, urging the world community not to repeat the passive observation that allowed the conflict in Syria to grow into the bloodiest of the 21st century.

"There are clear echoes of Syria in 2011," UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet said.

"There too we saw peaceful protests met with unnecessary and clearly disproportionate force," said Bachelet, a former president of Chile, noting that the absence of an international response led the repression to both persist and grow worse, leading to "some individuals taking up arms, followed by a downward and rapidly expanding spiral of violence."

In February, Myanmar's long-dominant military overthrew the country's tenuous democracy, making false claims of voter fraud to evict de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi and her party from power. In the weeks since, the military has repeatedly opened fire on protesters, killing over 700 people, including 82 in one city last Friday.

In March, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the Biden administration was "deeply concerned" by the violence in Myanmar, also known as Burma.

"We, of course, continue to work with our allies and partners and like-minded institutions as we condemn the actions of the military, call for the immediate restoration of democracy, and hold those who seize power accountable," Psaki said.

But in her remarks Tuesday, Bachelet said the world was not doing nearly enough to actually stop the bloodshed.

"Statements of condemnation, and limited targeted sanctions, are clearly not enough," she said. "States with influence need to urgently apply concerted pressure on the military in Myanmar to halt the commission of grave human rights violations and possible crimes against humanity."

Myanmar's envoy to the UN, appointed by the last democratically elected government, has urged the international community to impose an arms embargo on the country as well as a no-fly zone, which would entail forcing the military junta's aircraft out of the skies.

While much attention has been focused on the military's response to pro-democracy rallies, it has also been launching airstrikes against armed groups in Karen state, along the border with Thailand. Locals have claimed the strikes have exacted a civilian toll, causing thousands to flee and prompting fears of an all-out civil war.

Syria 2.0?

The parallels to Syria are glaring. In early 2011, thousands of people inspired by the Arab Spring took to the streets to demand reform in an authoritarian dictatorship led by Bashar al-Assad. The crackdown was swift and brutal: snipers took shots at activists, thousands of whom disappeared in torture chambers (the UN would later declare the government guilty of "extermination").

At first, Western leaders offered only tepid criticism. "What's been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning," former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "but there's a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities [and] police actions which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see."

Many members of Congress, she added, believe Assad is a "reformer." Indeed, the US had collaborated with Assad's government during the War on Terror, the Bush administration sent detainees there who were later tortured. (The US, likewise, helped train Myanmar's military, suspending that assistance in 2017 amid the Rohingya genocide.) And the Obama administration had recently reopened the US embassy in Damascus, hoping to see a formal peace agreement between Israel and Assad's government.

It would take months more for President Barack Obama to demand Assad step down — time that allowed massacres to continue and armed groups, including extremists, to fill the vacuum left by the seeming indifference of the world's democracies.

Assad would go on to bomb most of the country's cities to rubble, while using chemical weapons to kill civilians who defied his regime, according to reports from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. That — a death toll in the hundreds of thousands, with millions forced to become refugees — is a future Bachelet hopes to stave off.

"The military seems intent on intensifying its pitiless policy of violence against the people of Myanmar, using military-grade and indiscriminate weaponry," she observed.

But it is not just the US and its allies that she called out. At the UN, Russia and China, as with Syria before, have blocked the UN from even condemning the coup in Myanmar.

"The UN High Commissioner has sounded the alarm bell," Sherine Tadros, deputy director of advocacy at Amnesty International, told Insider. "It's now up to members of the Security Council to act and impose a comprehensive, global arms embargo and targeted sanctions on senior officials before the situation worsens further."

Have a news tip? Email this reporter: cdavis@insider.com

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why thoroughbred horse semen is the world's most expensive liquid

The US is investigating what appears to be directed-energy attacks on US troops, and the Pentagon suspects Russia is behind them, Politico reported.

Four national-security officials involved in the investigation told Politico that the Department of Defense has been investigating the incidents of suspected attacks since last year.

Two sources told Politico that this included incidents in Syria, where troops developed flu-like symptoms last fall.

Politico also reported that the Defense Department has briefed lawmakers on intelligence about the suspected attacks.

But a Pentagon spokesperson told Politico that the Defense Department wasn't aware of directed-energy attacks against troops in Syria. 

Insider has contacted the Department of Defense for comment.

Directed-energy attacks involve directing energy towards a particular target, and could involve methods like lasers. It can involve directing microwave energy towards people, which harms people's health.

US officials in Cuba, China, and Russia have previously become mysteriously sick, and studies have pointed to microwave radiation as the main suspect.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How JFK customs searches 1 million packages a day for illegal items

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia said on Tuesday it had the ability for the first time to operate long-range strategic nuclear-capable bombers from its air base in Syria, expanding its capabilities and allowing such planes to train in new regions.

Russia operates the Hmeymim base on Syria's Mediterranean coast, from which it has launched air strikes in the past in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement that three Tupolev Tu-22M3 long-range bombers had flown to Hmeymim.

It said runways at the base had been made longer and one of them upgraded allowing Russia to operate aircrafts of all types from the base.

The three newly arrived bombers would hold training exercises in new geographical areas over the Mediterranean Sea, the defence ministry said, before returning to their permanent airfields in Russia.

(Reporting by Gabrielle Tétrault-Farber; editing by Andrew Osborn)

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How Russia's most advanced military equipment stacks up against NATO hardware

Syria's presidential election last week was "neither free nor fair," as a joint statement from the United States, the UK, France, Germany, and Italy said the day of the vote.

Though he technically had two opponents in the race and rules a country in a decade-long civil war, the victory of Syrian President Bashar Assad was never really in doubt. For most Syrians, in the words of a banner displayed at the headquarters of one of the regime's intelligence agencies, there was "no other choice."

For the United States, Assad's re-election should be a reiteration of the great foreign-policy lesson of the post-9/11 era: Our government cannot remake the world in its image.

We cannot play global police and social worker rolled into one, launching one military intervention after another to solve every problem and topple every dictator. Washington's regime change projects over the past 20 years have failed.

They failed even when they "succeeded," as in Iraq and Libya. They failed when they were merely threatened, as in North Korea. And they failed when they failed, as in Syria, where Assad continues to hold on to power.

Washington's failure in Iraq and Libya hardly needs rehearsing, 18 years after one war began and 10 after the other.

Both nations, much like Syria, were ruled by cruel autocrats who should never have had power. But both also suffered enormously in the aftermath of regime change. Iraq swapped dictatorship for terrorism, first al Qaeda, then the marauding "caliphate" of the Islamic State. Libya remains chaotic and bloody, riven by civil war, a textbook case of how not to intervene.

Neither has become an exemplar of democracy or a source of regional stability. In neither is there evidence that further US military involvement will make progress toward anything that may be called "victory."

Our government's regime change failure with North Korea is less visible, but we have come far too close for comfort to just such a war. The chief regime change advocate was former national security advisor John Bolton, who in his capacities in the George W. Bush and Trump administrations was a consistent advocate of preventive strikes.

In his 2007 memoir, Bolton expressed "dismay" over the advent of US-North Korean diplomacy — until, he wrote, he realized the North Koreans "were what they were," so negotiations might break down and then war could break out.

More recently, while working for former President Donald Trump, Bolton repeatedly pointed to Libya — with its dictator deposed and dead — as his ideal for North Korea and its despot, Kim Jong Un. With rhetoric like this (and, even in its absence, the US record in Iraq and Libya on full display), is it so surprising the Kim regime won't surrender its nuclear arsenal?

Then there's Syria, where the last three US presidents have launched strikes— all without congressional authorization, as the Constitution requires. A small contingent of US forces remains on the ground in opposition alike to Assad's forces and any last remnants of ISIS, which Assad also fights.

They're there, apparently indefinitely, though it has long since been clear that the US will not oust Assad. Syria's election demonstrates that anew, said Robert Ford, who was US ambassador to Syria when the civil war began in 2011.

"Great powers like the United States cannot remove this guy," Ford told The Washington Post ahead of the vote.

Absent large-scale war, which would have no connection to US security and little support among the war-weary American public, he's right. For the sake of the Syrian people, Assad should go, but this regime change isn't going to happen at our behest.

Keeping US soldiers on Syrian soil increases our risk while doing nothing to change the reality of Assad's office. Washington should withdraw all American troops from Syria (and Iraq) immediately and adopt the foreign-policy restraint these failures advise.

Bonnie Kristian is a fellow at Defense Priorities, contributing editor at The Week, and columnist at Christianity Today. Her writing has also appeared at CNN, NBC, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and Defense One, among other outlets.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Russia is so involved in the Syrian Civil War

The US military killed at least 23 civilians in 2020, according to a new report from the Department of Defense, a steep decline from previous years as offensive operations were significantly reduced during the pandemic. Another 10 civilians were likely injured, the department said.

In 2017, by contrast, the US military said it had killed nearly 500 civilians.

But independent observers said the actual number of civilian casualties is once again likely far higher than the US is willing to admit. The monitoring group Airwars, for example, estimates that a minimum of 102 civilians were killed by US operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.

Chris Woods, director of the group, said he welcomed the report, which is mandated by Congress and released annually.

"We remain concerned, however, that DoD estimates of civilian harm once again fall well below credible public estimates, and call on officials to review why such undercounts remain so common," Woods said in a statement. "Civilians surely deserve better."

The report itself, which the department releases annually, acknowledges that there are many more claims of innocent people killed than the military itself deems credible.

In Afghanistan, according to the report, the US military received 165 reports of civilian casualties related to operations in 2020. Of those, seven were deemed legitimate, resulting in approximately 20 civilian deaths and five injuries.

Airwars, by contrast, estimates that at least 89 civilians were killed and another 31 injured.

It often takes years for the US to admit civilian casualties occurred.

In November 2020, a spokesperson for US Central Command told Insider that an internal review found two civilians had indeed been injured from an airstrike in Yemen that took place some three years earlier.

In Somalia, the US also admitted last year to killing two civilians in a February 2019 airstrike after insisting for months that the victims were "terrorists."

The latest report itself notes that an additional 65 civilians were killed between 2017 and 2019, with another 22 injured, beyond the numbers previously reported.

Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, accused the Biden administration of obscuring the full toll of US military operations.

"The grossly inadequate official accounting for the costs and consequences of the United States' lethal actions abroad prevents meaningful public oversight and accountability for wrongful deaths and perpetual war policies," Shamsi said. "Civilian victims, their families, and the American public deserve far better than this."

Have a news tip? Email this reporter: cdavis@insider.com

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How JFK customs searches 1 million packages a day for illegal items

EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN SEA (AP) — Britain's newest aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, is helping to take on the "lion's share" of operations against the Islamic State group in Iraq, UK naval commanders said.

It has also piqued the interest of Russian warplanes, who try to keep tabs on its cutting-edge F-35 jet in a "cat-and-mouse" game with British and US pilots.

Speaking aboard the 65,000-ton carrier on its first-ever deployment, Commodore Steve Moorhouse said the UK is carrying out most of the missions to wipe out the remnants of IS in Iraq as the US focuses on its withdrawal from Afghanistan.

"At the moment, we're taking on the lion's share of that operation over Iraq, which is a fantastic, say, feather in our cap. But an achievement that 'A,' we're trusted, and 'B,' that we're able to do that," Moorhouse told reporters Sunday.

It's the first time that a UK aircraft carrier is supporting live military operations on the ground in over two decades, projecting British military power on a global scale.

Moorhouse said the carrier offers the UK flexibility in how to conduct military operations abroad and "keeps those that wish to cause us harm ... on their toes."

He said the eastern Mediterranean has become more "congested and contested" over the last decade in light of the heavier Russian military presence in Syria, which is resulting in regular encounters with Russian ships and warplanes.

"We're rubbing up against Russian activity, not in a you know, in a dangerous or aggressive manner, but you've just got other people out here playing in what is a fixed piece of water and airspace," said Moorhouse, adding that a Russian warship has come within 10 kilometers (16 miles) of the carrier.

The commodore insisted that Russian, British and US pilots have a "healthy respect for one another" and their conduct has been "absolutely professional" since the aircraft carrier started anti-IS operations on June 18.

"But there is a reality when you buy yourself a fifth-generation aircraft carrier and you take it around the world ... people are interested in it," he added.

Capt. James Blackmore, who commands the eight British F-35 jets and the 10 helicopters aboard the carrier, said UK and Russian pilots have come within "visual distance" of each other.

"It's that cat-and-mouse posturing, it's what we expect in this region of world. And as you can imagine, it's the first time for F-35s into the eastern Mediterranean," said Blackmore. "So, of course Russia wants to look at what they're like, they want to look at what our carriers are like."

The state-of-the art F-35, armed with air-to-air missiles and laser-guided bombs, is being used over Iraq to look for other aircraft or unmanned drones, support troops on the ground as well as to carry out surveillance with its sophisticated sensor and radar systems.

"It's a fifth-generation aircraft with a hugely, hugely capable radar and sensor suite, and that's what it brings. So it's the eyes and ears that it's offering out there," said Moorhouse.

The HMS Queen Elizabeth and its support ships, which include the US destroyer The Sullivans, will remain in the eastern Mediterranean for two to three weeks before moving through the Suez Canal to continue with a 7 1/2-month deployment to India, South Korea and Japan.

The carrier also has 10 US F-35 jets from the Marine Corps' Fighter Attack Squadron 211 aboard that carry out operations under British command.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch this US Navy aircraft carrier make some incredible high speed turns in the Atlantic Ocean

The Pentagon carried out airstrikes Monday morning in Iraq and Syria on facilities used by Iran-backed militia groups, Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said Sunday.

"At President Biden's direction, U.S. military forces earlier this evening conducted defensive precision airstrikes against facilities used by Iran-backed militia groups in the Iraq-Syria border region," he said in a statement.

Kirby said the targets were selected because they were used by Iran-backed militia groups that are conducting drone attacks against US personnel and facilities in Iraq. The groups included Kata'ib Hezbollah and Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada.

"As demonstrated by this evening's strikes, President Biden has been clear that he will act to protect U.S. personnel. Given the ongoing series of attacks by Iran-backed groups targeting U.S. interests in Iraq, the President directed further military action to disrupt and deter such attacks," Kirby said.

Read more: Meet 7 BidenWorld longtime consiglieres and a couple relative newcomers who have access to exclusive White House meetings

"We are in Iraq at the invitation of the Government of Iraq for the sole purpose of assisting the Iraqi Security Forces in their efforts to defeat ISIS. The United States took necessary, appropriate, and deliberate action designed to limit the risk of escalation - but also to send a clear and unambiguous deterrent message," he continued.

The airstrikes targeted operational and weapons storage facilities at three locations, two in Syria and one in Iraq, all near the border between the two countries.

It was not the first time the US launched airstrikes in the region under President Joe Biden. In February, Biden ordered airstrikes in Syria against assets of Iran-backed militia groups after militants fired rockets at an Iraqi airbase used by the US military. The same militia groups were also targeted on Monday.

Several militant groups in Iraq and Syria are supported by the Iranian government, which has struggled with years of economic sanctions. Biden has sought to engage Iran in talks aimed at restoring the 2015 nuclear deal that the US withdrew from under former President Donald Trump.

Have a news tip? Contact this reporter at kvlamis@insider.com.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How JFK customs searches 1 million packages a day for illegal items

Progressive Democrats are raising questions about the rationale behind airstrikes that President Joe Biden ordered against Iran-backed militias on the Iraq-Syria border on Sunday, and warning about the potential for a broader conflict.

"I will be briefed on the imminent harm to our troops who the President has a duty to protect and why the Administration believed this was necessary for self-defense," Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, told Insider. "What this shows, however, is the need for a broader strategy to bring our troops home so they are not at risk and to de-escalate the tensions with Iran."

These were not the first strikes against Iran-backed militias in the region. After Biden ordered similar strikes in February, he faced bipartisan criticism. The Biden administration justified the February strikes and Sunday's attacks under Article II of the Constitution, which designates the president as the commander in chief of the US military. Multiple administrations have taken military actions based on a broad interpretation of this. 

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in comments to Politico reporter Andrew Desiderio expressed concerns about Biden invoking Article II as the legal rationale for strikes against Iran-backed militias. Murphy said the fighting between the US and Iran-backed militias is starting to look like a "low-scale war." 

"I'm just as worried about the expansion of Article II authority interpretation as I am about the expansion of existing AUMF interpretation," Murphy said, in an apparent reference to the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force — laws that every president since George W. Bush have used to justify military actions and operations in countries across the globe.

Lawmakers in both parties have moved to repeal both of these post-9/11 laws— and the Biden administration recently endorsed a bill to scrap the 2002 AUMF — though there are also those who would like to see them kept in place. 

"While I commend President Biden's defensive strike on the proxies' facilities in Syria and Iraq, I believe these actions are overdue and highlight the continued need for the 2002 AUMF," GOP Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement. 

Meanwhile, Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a tweet emphasized that Congress "has authority over War Powers and should be consulted before any escalation."

"This constant cycle of violence and retribution is a failed policy and will not make any of us safer," Omar said.

The Pentagon said Sunday's "defensive" strikes were in response to drone attacks on US troops and facilities in Iraq, which the Pentagon said were used by Iran-linked militants to plot attacks against Americans. 

"Specifically, the US strikes targeted operational and weapons storage facilities at two locations in Syria and one location in Iraq, both of which lie close to the border between those countries," Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said in a statement.

Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a statement said that he will be "seeking more information from the Administration in the coming days regarding what specifically predicated these strikes, any imminent threats they believed they were acting against, and more details on the legal authority the Administration relied upon." 

"The United States must always take decisive action to protect our personnel and interests against attacks," Menendez also said. "Over the past year, Iranian-backed militia groups have increasingly targeted U.S. persons and assets, including killing Americans and coalition forces earlier this year."

The strikes also came as the Biden administration is vying to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Iranian and US diplomats have been engaged in indirect talks in Vienna aimed at restoring the pact, even as tensions remain high. Iran's incoming president, Ebrahim Raisi, last week said he endorses reviving the deal but underscored that he would not relinquish support for regional militias that have fomented attacks against US forces. Raisi is a hardliner who could cause major problems for Biden.

In comments to reporters in the Oval Office on Monday, Biden reiterated the administration's position that he had the constitutional authority to conduct the strikes. 

"I directed last night's airstrikes targeting sites used by the Iranian backed militia groups responsible for recent attacks on US personnel in Iraq,"Biden said."And I have that authority under Article II and even those up in the Hill who are reluctant to acknowledge that, have acknowledged that's the case."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why 'moist' is one of the most hated words in the English language

Four journalists set up shop in Madrid after upending their lives and fleeing their homes in Syria due to war and other difficult conditions. 

The journalists — Ayham al-Gareeb, Mohammad Shubat, Mousa al-Jamaat, and Okba Mohammad — were among a group of 11 rescued from dire conditions in Syria by the Committee to Protect Journalists. 

At this time in Syria, the Middle Eastern country was wrapped up in the Daraa insurgency. The Syrian army and anti-government forces have long been engaged in a conflict that's still ongoing today. The conflict has led to tension between the Syrian government and rebel forces, as well as hundreds of armed clashes. 

In the midst of this conflict, the four men fled Syria and arrived in Madrid in May 2019. Two years later, they founded Baynana, Spain's first refugee-led news site, according to the CPJ. 

The site publishes news in both Arabic and Spanish, aiming "to provide useful information for the growing Arabic-speaking community in Spain and counter negative stereotypes surrounding migrants and refugees," the CPJ said in a press release.

The journalists who started the news site credit and extend thanks to the CPJ.

"CPJ has helped us in so many ways," said al-Gareeb, who serves as the site's editor. "Firstly, they helped us to get out of war and relocate to a safe country like Spain. In my case, they also helped my wife and daughters to get here."

"CPJ also helped us to start Baynana and that will help us to continue to work in journalism, something we love," al-Gareeb added.

They started Baynana with the help of porCausa, a Spanish foundation dedicated to the advancement of investigative journalism and migration-related news, the CPJ said.

"The launching of Baynana is one of the most exciting developments in the Spanish media landscape in recent years," CPJ program director Carlos Martinez said in the press release. "It will consistently bring other voices and perspectives to the conversation on key topics and issues, and will enrich the overall journalism community."

Insider is covering this news as part of The One Free Press Coalition, which raises awareness of the world's persecuted journalists.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Where you should go to stay safe during an earthquake

The Biden administration launched airstrikes against Iran-linked militias in Iraq and Syria, the Pentagon confirmed Sunday, reportedly killing five militia members and, if Syrian state-run media accounts are correct, one child.

The administration cast the strikes as a defensive measure to keep US troops in the region safe from the militias' drone attacks, proof that "President Biden … will act to protect US personnel."

This characterization is consistent with the Biden team's broader messaging on Iraq and Syria, which is that Iraq wants our military to stick around indefinitely, that ongoing occupation of both nations is right and needful to defend against Iran and the last remnants of ISIS, and that these wars aren't analogous to the "forever war" in Afghanistan Biden promised to end.

That messaging is misleading at best. The notion that Iraq wants US forces to stay put is particularly easily dispelled.

Baghdad promptly and vehemently condemned the June strikes on its soil as "a blatant and unacceptable violation of Iraqi sovereignty and Iraqi national security" in a statement from the prime minister's office. A foreign ministry representative went further, castigating Biden for prolonging the failures of his predecessor.

"The US still continues the wrong path in the region," he said. "What we see today is not only the sanctions but also following the wrong policies of the previous administration with actions they carry out in the region."

This censure is but the latest in a growing list of efforts by the Iraqi government to dislodge the 18-year US military intervention in its country. Last year, the Iraqi parliament voted to expel all US troops, a decision then-President Donald Trump ignored.

This spring, Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi expressed hope that new US-Iraq dialogues would focus on "the redeployment of [US] forces outside of Iraq." And Iraqi military officials in May indicated to the Post that they're unhappy with US-Iraq relations, "feel[ing] like a junior partner in a relationship largely centered on reducing Iranian influence in the region."

Baghdad is saying with ever more clarity that it wants the US intervention to end.

The legitimacy and necessity of further American military meddling is also a myth. The Obama, Trump, and now Biden administrations have all operated illegally in Syria, where Congress never authorized war.

This strike, like the Syrian interventions of the past two presidents, was unconstitutional. Like the two presidents before him, Biden has no business bombing Syria.

Bizarrely, Biden has also endorsed a bipartisan congressional effort to repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq, which has passed the House but not yet the Senate. That means he soon may be without legal authority for the strikes in Iraq as well.

Even now, however, while the AUMF remains intact, it's worth recalling this is a war begun under false pretenses, one which never had significant import for US national security and does not to this day. (Operations against terror threats in either country which could affect vital US interests do not require a permanent ground presence.)

Though the Pentagon claimed these recent strikes were defensive (the same rationale deployed for Biden's first strike on Syrian soil earlier this year), this is twisted logic.

The reason US forces are at risk of violence by Iran-linked militias, the remnants of ISIS, or any other malicious group in the region is precisely because US forces are in the region. If we end these interventions, we end that risk.

US forces are in harm's way from the militias' drones because they are fighting in Iraq and Syria — bring them home, and this will be a non-issue. The drones cannot cross the Atlantic. There would be no need for the "defensive" strikes in Iraq and Syria were Biden not extending US military action in Iraq and Syria.

But he is, and he's doing so on the grounds — as CENTCOM commander Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie said in April— that we shouldn't compare the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

That's a strange claim, because the many excellent reasons Biden has supplied to withdraw US forces from Afghanistan apply equally well to withdrawing US forces from Iraq (and Syria).

In those countries, too, as Biden said of Afghanistan when he announced his September plan for departure, we "cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence … hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdrawal, and expecting a different result."

These too are no-win forever wars, one already unauthorized and one soon to be. Instead of more airstrikes, Biden should approve more troop transports home.

Bonnie Kristian is a fellow at Defense Priorities, contributing editor at The Week, and columnist at Christianity Today. Her writing has also appeared at CNN, NBC, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and Defense One, among other outlets.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Russia is so involved in the Syrian Civil War

A majority of the those who live in the last opposition-held sliver of northwestern Syria are internally displaced, having already fled Russian and regime bombing campaigns elsewhere. Their final refuge is controlled by extremist militants and blockaded, with Damascus and its allies continuing to rain missiles and artillery fire on what is essentially one large refugee camp.

The single internationally sanctioned gateway to the outside is Bab al-Hawa, where the United Nations transports aid to hundreds of thousands of people who depend it. But even that gateway is tenuous, with Russia threatening to veto an effort at the UN Security Council to renew the border crossing's mandate, which expires July 10. Moscow maintains that, going forward, all aid should pass through the territory of its ally, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who has previously denied such aid as a means of starving his opponents

Mark Cutts, the UN's deputy regional humanitarian coordinator for the Syria crisis, told Insider what's at stake.

Charles Davis: What is the humanitarian situation on the ground in northwest Syria? Isn't the war over?

Mark Cutts: The violence continues daily. Hospitals have been badly damaged, aid convoys hit, and scores of people killed and injured, including children, disabled people, humanitarians, and medics. More than 2.7 million people are displaced by the conflict, where the humanitarian situation is at its most heartbreaking. Millions of people are pushed up against the border with Turkey. Poverty has gotten worse due to the conflict, an economic crisis and COVID-19. The number of people reliant on aid has increased by 20% to 3.4 million people. Prices of food staples rose by over 200% in the last year alone, while income sources and livelihoods have been eroded by the ongoing economic crisis.

CD: How does aid currently get there and who supplies it?

MC: More than UN 1,000 trucks cross the border at Bab-al Hawa every month from our transport hub in Turkey.

CD: Isn't this area controlled by extremist groups? Do they manage distribution of this aid?

MC: Since 2014, the UN has delivered 39,000 trucks of humanitarian aid through this corridor. Every single one of these trucks has been inspected by UN monitors. We also check the goods when they arrive at warehouses in Syria, and at distribution points, and we do post distribution monitoring. It is the most scrutinized aid distribution in the world.

CD: Russia has been saying aid could go through regime-controlled Syria. Why isn't that acceptable?

MC: The scale of the needs in northwest Syria, where 90 percent of the 3.4 million affected people are in extreme need of humanitarian aid for their survival, is such that a massive cross-border aid operation is needed.  Most of the displaced people are in camps close to the Turkish border, and with the war still going on, the cross-border aid operation has proven to be the safest and most direct way of getting aid to these people. Crossline convoys will only be possible if the parties to the conflict agree to this. The UN is ready to carry out crossline convoys if the parties to the conflict reach agreement on this.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why 'moist' is one of the most hated words in the English language

Republican lawmakers said President Joe Biden is not responding strongly enough after numerous attacks against US personnel in Iraq and Syria by Iran-backed militias, Politico reported. 

In the past week, at least six rocket and drone attacks targeted US troops and diplomats. On Wednesday, for example, two US service members were injured when at least 14 rockets hit an Iraqi airbase hosting US troops, Reuters reported. 

Politico reported the exchanges this week are the latest in a long string of back and forth attacks between the US and Iranian-backed militias. 

Biden has been working to be less involved in the region to focus on dealing with the coronavirus pandemic and Republicans have been critical of the minimal approach. 

"Iran-backed militias' continued assault on US personnel in Iraq cannot be tolerated," Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement to Politico. "President Biden must put forward a real strategy for deterring and ending these attacks, rather than continuing his bare-minimum, tit-for-tat approach that is failing to deter Iran or its militias and puts American lives at increased risk."

Former United States Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, under former President Donald Trump, Mick Mulroy told Politico that "Iran needs to know they can't hide behind their proxy forces."

Read more: Photos show shirtless Democratic congressmen and their wives riding camels on a Qatar trip paid for by a special interest group

Biden did order airstrikes against Iran-backed militias on the Iraq-Syria border late last month, as well as in February following attacks on US personnel, but faced backlash from progressives. 

"I will be briefed on the imminent harm to our troops who the President has a duty to protect and why the Administration believed this was necessary for self-defense," Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, told Insider's John Haltiwanger last month. "What this shows, however, is the need for a broader strategy to bring our troops home so they are not at risk and to de-escalate the tensions with Iran."

During a press conference, Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby addressed the attacks on Thursday and said the US is evaluating a response. 

"Obviously deeply concerned. We take the security and safety of our people overseas extremely seriously. And you've seen us retaliate appropriately when that safety and security has been threatened," Kirby said. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why wasabi is so expensive

Recent statements by a Russian admiral and an anonymous Russian source have prompted speculation about whether Russia is changing its approach regarding Israeli strikes on Iranian and Hezbollah targets in Syria.

If such a shift is coming, it could pose problems for the United States, as the situation between Israel and Russia, while not unfriendly, is fragile and complicated.

On July 19, Israel launched an attack on Hezbollah and Iranian-affiliated targets in Syria.

Rear Adm. Vadim Kulit, deputy chief of the Russian Center for Reconciliation of the Opposing Parties in Syria, claimed that Russian missile-defense systems brought down seven of eight Israeli missiles launched at sites near Aleppo. A few days later, Kulit claimed Israel launched another four missiles near Homs, all of which he said were intercepted.

Israel did not comment on the attack, but made sure that images of significant damage to a Syrian site were widely circulated on social media.

Observers questioned the specifics of Kulit's claims, casting a good deal of doubt on their veracity. Around the same time, the London-based Arabic news outlet, Asharq Al-Aswat, reported that an anonymous Russian source said that, in the wake of US President Joe Biden's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Moscow had gotten the message that Washington was not pleased with Israel's escalated activity in Syria.

But there has been no indication that the United States is concerned about Israel's military activities in Syria, nor that such a spectacular success against Israeli missiles was accomplished.

Either of these would be game-changers, and it's difficult to believe that there would be no chatter about them in the United States and Israel if either were true. But if the claims are exaggerated, what is the purpose of such statements by Russia?

Clearly, Kulit was not speaking out of turn, as there have been no reports of his being disciplined or reprimanded for his statements. Russian leaders have not publicly rebuked or supported Kulit's statements, which reinforces the idea that these claims are being put out there for strategic purposes.

They take place at a time of major change. Joe Biden has replaced Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu has been supplanted by Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid.

In both cases, this means a shift for Putin from interlocutors who relied heavily on their personal relationship with him and operated with a very self-centered style of diplomacy, to newcomers he is less familiar with and represent national interests beyond their own.

Putin likely wants to test the resolve of the relatively inexperienced Israeli leaders and wants to get a clear picture of how Biden, with his less conciliatory approach to Moscow compared to Trump, will handle the delicate balance that has been struck in Syria.

That balance is based in an agreement that the Trump administration reached with Russia in 2017, and which Israel was greatly displeased by.

It allowed Iranian-backed militias, including Hezbollah, to continue to operate in a safe zone created in southern Syria. The accompanying ceasefire in that zone was meant to facilitate both US and Russian efforts to combat ISIS in the region, but Israel was much more concerned about the militias.

Israeli complaints fell on deaf ears, but the Trump administration made it clear that Israel was free to pursue its objectives. A line of communication was opened between Israel and Russia, which Israel used to notify Moscow of impending attacks, in the hope of avoiding Russian casualties and upsetting the delicate balance.

Although there have been several incidents over the years that threatened to alter the status quo, diplomacy between Israel and Russia managed to defuse tensions when they arose. But now, there have been reports that the communication between Israel and Russia has stopped.

Netanyahu, ever on the lookout for ways to discredit and undermine the new Israeli government, seemed to support this idea when his Likud party stated that, "We maintained freedom of action in Syria thanks to Netanyahu's close relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. If these reports are accurate, this failed government has lost another vital strategic asset that Israel enjoyed under the Netanyahu government."

Russia has never been happy about Israel's frequent attacks in Syria, as its foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, affirmed in January. "If Israel is really forced to respond to threats to Israeli security coming from the Syrian territory," he said, "we have told our Israeli colleagues many times: if you see such threats, please give us the information."

Israel has made it clear over the years that this is unacceptable to them.

There may also be more than just feeling out the new Israeli and US governments at work here.

With Lebanon mired in economic collapse and political chaos, Hezbollah's position there has become more volatile and controversial, even while its military capabilities have grown and have remained a source of agitation for Israel.

As the situation in Lebanon worsens, the possibility of clashes with Israel increase, particularly as Hezbollah has faced increased scrutiny and negative attention domestically.

The possibility of the United States finding a way to re-enter the Iran nuclear deal, and defusing some of the tensions in the Gulf, also represents a potential shift for Russia to manage.

In early July, Russia, Iran, and Turkey reaffirmed their stated desire to see a unified and independent Syria reformed.

This is where Russia is hoping to flex its diplomatic muscles on the international stage, but aside from declarations like this one, and some cooperation between Russia and Turkey in maintaining each country's sphere of influence in Syria, the process these countries undertook four years ago has shown little potential to resolve the Syrian conflict.

With these shifting circumstances, Russia may be looking for a way forward.

Arab states, most prominently the UAE, are carefully exploring ways to start bringing Syria back into the fold. Russia very much wants to see that happen, as it would then have a more direct influence in the region, through Damascus.

But it's a difficult process; Arab states do not want to shoulder the burden of rebuilding Syria, something Russia as well cannot afford, and the country remains conflicted and divided.

By rebuking Israel, Moscow has reaffirmed its support for and value to the tattered Assad regime. But the regional concerns are what make the question of whether Russia is really intending to take a stronger stance against Israeli actions in Syria so important.

The Biden administration will have to think carefully about how to move forward if Russia decides to defend Syrian airspace more forcefully. It would need to find a way to convince Israel to respect Syrian airspace while ensuring that Israel remains secure from attack, something the United States would need to cooperate with Moscow to achieve.

Washington has so far remained quiet. If the recent statements were mere posturing by Russia, it can comfortably continue to do so. If not, it will have to get involved in brokering a deal, lest Israeli tensions with Russia escalate and create a new powder keg in a region that already has too many.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Russia is so involved in the Syrian Civil War