Jordan, Kuwait face risk as war zone moves far from Iran’s borders
By Alma Cordero · Reporting from El Paso ·
The latest casualty reports and military movements confirm a critical shift in regional conflict dynamics: the zone of danger is no longer contained by national boundaries or limited to Iranian soil.
The Illusion of Containment: When War Zones Outrun National Borders
The Pentagon loves to make us think this conflict is contained—that it’s a localized issue far from our borders. But if you read the casualty reports or track the military movements, the lie becomes glaringly obvious. This isn't some distant skirmish; it's an expanding zone of danger that has metastasized across multiple nations and global choke points. The sheer geographical reach is staggering: we are talking about strikes hitting U.S. bases in Jordan, targeting logistics infrastructure at Camp Doha in Kuwait, and impacting facilities in Bahrain. This isn't targeted defense; it’s a destabilizing hemorrhage of risk that pulls the conflict further afield than ever before.
The human cost serves as the most damning evidence of this policy failure. Since February 28, the total number of U.S. casualties has exceeded eighteen service members. The Pentagon recently reported losing Sgt. Angel S. Rampersad, 28, from Ozone Park, New York—a life cut short by an Iranian strike targeting a base in Jordan. That same devastating report confirmed the deaths of Pfc. Isabella Gonzales, 19, from Carrollton, Texas, and 1st Lt. Tyler Feehan, of Ewa Beach, Hawaii. These names are not abstractions; they represent young lives sacrificed to maintain geopolitical posturing that does nothing for the people right here on the border or in our communities.
Global Commerce as a Shield for Imperial Ambition
The focus has shifted from ground troops to global choke points—Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb. This is where the true, dangerous stakes lie: not just military power, but control over commerce itself. Secretary Marco Rubio’s warnings about setting a "very dangerous precedent" if any single nation controls an international waterway ring with chilling clarity. The anxiety over maintaining open passage through vital arteries like the Red Sea or the Suez Canal underscores that this conflict isn't about regional stability; it's about guaranteeing access for global capitalism.
The fact that U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) continues to facilitate the transit of roughly 900 commercial vessels carrying an estimated 450 million barrels of crude oil demonstrates a global commitment to keeping trade flowing, regardless of the human cost or legal implications. We see this structural strain mirrored in history—the Vietnam parallel cited by analysts confirms that when military commitments extend far from core interests, the political and moral price becomes immediate and visible.
The Militarization of International Law
What we are witnessing is a dangerous militarization of international law, where geopolitical necessity trumps human rights and stable governance. We are told to worry about setting precedents—that if one nation charges a toll on an international waterway, it's bad for the world. But what precedent does this constant violence set? It normalizes foreign war as a tool of economic leverage. The escalating tensions surrounding Jordan, which is increasingly facing risk from persistent attacks targeting its accommodations and equipment storage, show how quickly stable nations can become mere battlegrounds in someone else’s grand strategic game.
The necessity of these global trade routes means that every nation-state must guard against setting dangerous precedents—but the U.S. military's actions themselves are creating them daily. We cannot allow Washington to conflate maintaining open commerce with perpetuating conflict. The true stability for this region, and indeed for our own border communities, lies not in missile interceptions or drone strikes, but in diplomacy that prioritizes people over oil barrels.
This pattern of distant conflict is a costly distraction from the systemic needs of human beings—the families, the workers, the lives—and it demands an immediate and profound pivot away from militarism toward genuine humanitarian policy.