The killing of two U.S. service members in Jordan marks a dangerous escalation in a 'hugely unpopular war,' demanding immediate de-escalation and a critical review of perpetual military entanglement.
The drums of war beat louder this week, echoing a grim and all too familiar rhythm of military entanglement in the Middle East. On July 17, 2026, two U.S. service members were tragically killed and one remains missing following Iranian missile and drone attacks on the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan. This is not merely an isolated incident but a dangerous flashpoint in a "hugely unpopular war" with Iran, a conflict that demands immediate de-escalation and a profound progressive reassessment of U.S. foreign policy.
The human cost is already mounting. Beyond the fatalities and the missing service member, four others were medically evacuated and discharged, while numerous personnel received treatment for minor injuries. These losses bring the total number of U.S. service members killed in operations against Iran to at least 14, with 427 injured as of July 17, and a broader tally of at least 16 American service members killed in action since fighting with Iran began on February 28 of this year. Each casualty represents a broken family, a shattered future, and a stark reminder of the devastating consequences of unchecked militarism.
The Current Reality
In the immediate aftermath of the July 17 attack on Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, the U.S. response has been swift and, for many, predictable. President Donald Trump's administration has ordered an eighth straight night of strikes on Iran, further intensifying an already volatile situation. These operations, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) states, are aimed at degrading Iran's ability to threaten commercial shipping and to "swiftly punish" the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Furthermore, the Pentagon is reportedly rushing F-16 Fighting Falcons and F-35 Lightning II fighters to the region, signaling a clear intent for continued military posture.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in a social media post, declared, "Godspeed, heroes," adding, "Their sacrifice only stiffens our resolve." This rhetoric, while intended to project strength, often serves to justify further escalation rather than seek diplomatic off-ramps. On the Iranian side, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has warned of "unforgettable lessons" if U.S. attacks persist, while the Revolutionary Guard's Aerospace Force commander stated that their "effective and targeted strikes" will continue until "security and calm are restored" in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's health ministry reported that 38 people have been killed and 400 wounded in U.S. strikes since June 22. In a significant move, Iran has also announced the suspension of its commitments under a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States.
The ripple effects are felt across the region. Jordan's air defenses have intercepted Iranian missiles, and Kuwait reported responding to Iranian drone attacks. The U.S. State Department has even issued a "Worldwide Caution," advising citizens abroad, particularly in the Middle East, of heightened tensions and potential travel disruptions. This escalating conflict has become a significant domestic issue for President Trump, with the war described by one outlet as "hugely unpopular" and impacting his polling numbers four months before a "hugely consequential midterm election." Trump, meanwhile, has defended the campaign as critical to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
A Progressive Critique
This latest deadly incident in Jordan is a stark indictment of a shortsighted and interventionist foreign policy that prioritizes military might over diplomatic solutions. The progressive viewpoint fundamentally questions the very premise of perpetual U.S. military presence in the Middle East, especially when it consistently leads to such tragic outcomes. The framing of "Iranian strikes" often obscures the complex web of historical grievances, economic sanctions, and proxy conflicts fueled by decades of external interference. This is not merely an "Iranian aggression" but a dangerous feedback loop of action and reaction, a cycle in which American lives are sacrificed and regional stability is continuously undermined.
The narrative of "stiffening resolve" and preventing nuclear weapons, as articulated by the current administration, rings hollow when confronted with the reality of escalating deaths and injuries. Such rhetoric too often serves the military-industrial complex, ensuring a steady flow of resources into endless wars while neglecting pressing domestic needs. This "hugely unpopular war" reveals a glaring disconnect between the foreign policy establishment and the American public, who overwhelmingly desire peace and de-escalation, not deeper entanglements. It's a critique of both conservative hawkishness and any centrist reluctance to challenge the foundational assumptions of American exceptionalism and its accompanying military footprint. The decision to tear up previous agreements and escalate tensions further highlights a dangerous disregard for diplomacy and multilateralism.
The Path Forward
A progressive path forward demands an immediate shift away from the current trajectory of military escalation. Firstly, there must be a genuine commitment to de-escalation, moving beyond retaliatory strikes and towards comprehensive diplomatic engagement with Iran. This includes restarting direct negotiations, potentially involving international mediators, to address security concerns and de-escalate regional proxy conflicts. The suspension of the MoU by Iran signifies a breakdown that urgently needs to be mended, not widened.
Secondly, the U.S. must critically re-evaluate its military presence in the Middle East. Decades of intervention have demonstrably failed to bring lasting peace or stability, often exacerbating extremist sentiment and fueling anti-American resentment. A strategic withdrawal, paired with robust diplomatic and humanitarian efforts, could redefine America's role in the region, shifting from an occupying force to a facilitator of peace and development. This includes halting arms sales to belligerent regimes and prioritizing human rights and self-determination over geopolitical chess games.
Finally, at home, a progressive movement must galvanize public opinion against endless wars, challenging the bipartisan consensus that often underpins military adventurism. We must hold our leaders accountable for the human and financial costs of these conflicts, demanding investments in social programs, infrastructure, and climate solutions rather than in instruments of war. The tragic deaths in Jordan are a poignant reminder that we cannot afford to look away; the time for a fundamental reorientation of U.S. foreign policy is now.