In the aftermath of the attack on Tower 22 that led to the death of three U.S. soldiers and left over 35 injured at the border of Jordan and Syria, perpetrated by the Iraqi Resistance reportedly supported by Iran. A cloud of uncertainty looms over the border where the incident occurred. Was it in Jordan, as reported by the U.S. government and others like @simonateba and @jcokechukwu, or in Syria, as indicated by @thesiriusreport and @CCCP_42, among others?

The incident has ignited discussions about the possibility of the United States engaging in a war with Iran. As the likes of @LindseyGrahamSC advocate for military action, it is crucial to analyze the potential consequences and the intricate dynamics that such a conflict would entail.

Gone are the days when global superpowers a.k.a THE U.S.A. faced adversaries with weakened military capabilities Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, etc. The United States, with its economic and military might, exerted unparalleled influence. However, the current geopolitical landscape presents a different scenario. Regional powers, including Iran, China, and Russia, have strengthened their military capabilities and are now asking challenging questions on the battlefield.

The attack at the Jordan-Syria border has raised concerns about the trajectory of US-Iran relations. The ambiguity surrounding the location of the incident adds an extra layer of complexity to the situation, as different sources point to either Jordan or Syria.

One cannot discuss the prospect of a US-Iran war without addressing the exit plan. The scars of extended military involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan are still fresh, especially the death of 13 US servicemen who died needlessly during the Afghan withdrawal. Will the 'new' war last for another two decades? Does the U.S. have a clear exit strategy to prevent protracted involvement? The U.S citizens like @TuckerCarlson , @WesternLensman, @FinalCutTile etc are rightfully against any potential conflicts.

The global deployment of US military personnel, particularly in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, has not gone unnoticed by the American public. As domestic challenges mount on President Biden, like the one with Texas led by governor @GregAbbott_TX over illegal immigrants, inflations, fentanyl overdose, etc. Citizens are asking why the government is locating more resources to international conflicts. over $120B spent on Ukraine, more to aid Israel against Hamas. Striking a balance between addressing global concerns and focusing on domestic priorities is a delicate task that requires careful consideration.

Reflecting on past predictions, media narratives once warned of President Trump being the catalyst for World War III. Now, the spotlight shifts to President Biden, with accusations of escalating towards a global conflict. The irony is not lost on observers, underscoring the unpredictability of international relations and the challenges any leader faces in navigating the intricate web of geopolitical tensions.

The ancient African proverb "when two elephants fight, the grass suffers" encapsulates the grim reality of conflicts between powerful entities. In the grand theater of war, the burden is rarely borne by those who incite conflicts. Instead, it is the ordinary people, often the poor and disenfranchised, who find themselves thrust into the frontline.

Once again, the specter of conflict emerges on the global stage, and Africa finds itself ensnared in the crossfire. Historically, the continent has been a pawn in the games of powerful nations, coerced to take sides or face the imposition of foreign ideologies in the guise of democracy. As the elephants clash, African countries must navigate treacherous waters, balancing their interests against the pressures of external forces.

It is therefore incumbent upon the global community to recognize the true cost of war and strive for solutions that prioritize peace, diplomacy, and the well-being of all, irrespective of their geography, gender, financial standings, religion, etc.

May God help us all