The U.S. currently has some 40,000 soldiers stationed across the Middle East.

“U.S. troops being deployed to Israel in this matter is seismic,” Malekafzali added. “The U.S. military is now inextricably involved in this war, directly, without any illusions of barriers. Netanyahu is as close as he has ever been to his ultimate wish: making the U.S. fight Iran on Israel’s behalf.”

Israel’s cabinet met Thursday to discuss a potential response to Iran’s October 1 missile barrage. One unnamed Israeli source told The Times of Israel that “no big decisions” were made at the cabinet meeting. Speaking to reporters earlier this month, Biden said that U.S. and Israeli officials were “discussing” the possibility of an attack on Iranian oil infrastructure.

Iran has warned of a “crushing” response to any Israeli attack.

    • Darrell_Winfield@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      2 months ago

      First off, as with every time domestic terrorism is discussed, US armed forces cannot carry out hostilities on domestic soil.

      Second off, it’s 100 personnel. Barely a blip on the total number of deployable personnel, and it’s an air defense group without offensive capabilities.

      Clickbait is clickbait.

      • TheDoozer@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        I disagree. If we sent 100 personnel with an air defense group to Ukraine, shit would get pretty real pretty fast. Sending people is a whole different commitment to sending weapons.

        I had an old instructor who liked to say “when it comes to breakfast, what’s the difference between the chicken and the pig? The chicken made a contribution, the pig made a commitment.”

        Sending our own troops stops being a contribution and starts being a commitment.

        • nonailsleft@lemm.eeEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          The US sent ships to the region immediately after oct ‘23. So I’d say the’ commitment’ to put military personnel directly in harms’ way was already there

      • small44@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        I don’t want a single soldier of my country to die for another country that is occupying somebody else

      • Mr_Blott@feddit.ukEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        If the Taliban deployed 100 personnel to the US, would that be an aggressive act?

        Let’s not forget the US is widely seen as a terrorist state assisting in a genocide here lol

        • Darrell_Winfield@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          Massive non sequitur there. Taliban does not have military bases on US soil to fortify with 100 personnel.

          I’m not disagreeing that the US is assisting in genocide. Has been for a while, and the top two projected candidates for US presidency will further perpetuate this.

          But this 100 troop movement is insignificant and is being played up for drama and clicks.

          • Count042@lemmy.mlEnglish
            1·
            2 months ago

            It’s putting 100 US military personal in place to operate a legitimate military target that will be one of the first things targeted.

            We didn’t give this to Ukraine, despite them begging for it, because of the implications of US military personal potentially being killed by Russia.

            Seriously, to the people acting like the obvious next step to ww3 is no big deal, what happened to your critical thinking skills? Do they go out the window, along with any anti war sentiment, when a Democratic president is in office?

  • Letstakealook@lemm.eeEnglish
    1·
    2 months ago

    Gotta love that I go to work everyday so my government can take my money to fund a foreign genocide while my neighbors starve, struggle, and die. Fuck Israel and fuck my government.