We continue to follow the breaking news out of the Middle East. The US is working to identify exactly which militia group carried out a deadly drone attack on a small US outpost in Jordan that killed three US troops and injured more than 30 others. This happening near the border with Syria and Iraq. And joining me now to talk about this, CNN military analyst and retired US Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton and former Middle East negotiator for the State Department, Aaron David Miller. Colonel, let me go to you first. Your reaction to this deadly attack on US troops groups. There have been these moments that we've seen over the last several weeks where these Iran-backed militias have been wreaking havoc, have been a nuisance to US forces in the region. But obviously, this time, it's much more serious and it may bring about a US response.

Yeah, I think it certainly will, Jim. Good to be with you again. This is a really serious escalation at this point. And what it has done because of the deaths of at least three American service members and the injuries of more, 30 plus soldiers, it is clearly raising the ante here. And the group that did this, whichever one it was, is clearly asking for a response from the US. And what that, of course, means, it remains to be seen. But one of the key suspects here is probably Khataib Hezbollah, the group in Iraq that is an main Iranian proxy there. I It could be one of the other Iranian proxies, but it clearly points to a possible escalation in that direction.

And before I go to Aaron, Colonel, just a quick follow-up. Can you tell us more about this outpost known as Tower 22 in Jordan and the military installations that are located in that general area. This sounds a bit of a remote outpost, and I wonder if it raises the question about security at some of these installations where US forces may be vulnerable to this thing.

Yeah, it certainly does raise a lot of security questions. And of course, force protection, as we call security in the military, is a key and dominant mission requirement for US forces there. But this base, Tower Tower 22 is right near the base of Al-Tanf, which is in Syria. Tower 22 is right on the Jordan-Syria border, but it's also close to what they call the tripoint, where three countries come together, in this case, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan. And because of that, it's in a unique position where it can oversee a lot of the smuggling routes that have been there for thousands of years between all of the different areas within Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. And it is at a very strategic location, has provided a lot of supplies to Al-Tanf, which is the primary base in this part of Syria that has been used against the ISIS forces that we fought against over the last few years.

And Aaron, President Biden has been briefed on the attack. He's released a statement vowing to hold those responsible, accountable. We're already seeing calls from Republican lawmakers for a strike inside Iran. As a matter of fact, we talked to congressman Adam Smith at the top of the hour, and he said that perhaps some sites in Iran should be considered for some proportionate response. What might that do to the situation that obviously has been simmering with a lot of tensions over the last several weeks? Obviously, things could get way more escalated if something like that happens.

Whether we're on the cusp, and thanks for having me, Jim, it's great to be here currently. Whether we're on the cusp of a regional war or not, I don't know. We're almost five months in. February seventh will be the fifth month of this war. You're looking at controlled escalation to a large degree across the Israeli-Lebanese border, and even these attacks against American bases and troops in Iraq and Syria. I think the administration administration on this one has options that run from bad to worse. I think there are only two options. They're going to respond. The question is, are they going to respond against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps actual forces in Iraq and/or Syria? Or, as Adam Smith suggested, are they going to risk something that this administration, none of its predecessors have done, and that is to strike Iranian assets in Iran proper, which for the Iranians is a self-proclaimed red line. Whether or not that proves to be the case, we may actually begin to find out. The other option, of course, is to strike fastboats and Iranian naval assets in the Gulf. But the administration, understandably, given the regional hotspots that the Israeli Ammaas war has generated has a certain amount of risk aversion in their own responses.

I mean, they've responded actually to what? 160, 170 attacks since October. Maybe a 10th of those we've responded to. I think on this one, however, you're going to see some fireworks. I still think this is not going to trip the US and Iran into a major confrontation, but it certainly raises the stakes.

Colonel, what do you think? Can the US hit Iran without hitting inside Iranian territory, as Erin is suggesting, and perhaps strike a balance that sends a message without getting things out of control?

I think it's imperative that the US does that, Jim. As Erin was pointing out, there are several options here. Most of them are very bad. But the best option of a bad series of choices is going to be to hit something that is very important to the Iranians, but it is not something that strikes at the core of the regime or at the core of some of their capabilities, but it would serve as a warning to them. Something like attacking naval assets in the Persian Gulf, something like that, it goes up to the line, but they could do that or they could stick with hitting the proxies in either Iraq or Syria. But if there's a hand that is hidden, that is revealed for, let's say, the contact from Tehran that perhaps directed this attack, then they have to consider going all that way to send a message to the Iranians.

And, Erin, while all of this is unfolding, the The President had sent the CIA director to Europe in the hopes of reviving these hostage negotiations to get some deal going between Israel and Hamas to simmer things down. I wonder, do you think the Iranians were trying to blow this up? They were trying to have an impact on this process? What do you think? Could this get worse if we don't see a deal reached?

Well, it's definitely going to get worse. It's going to get worse before it worse, I suspect. But I usually am pretty knowingly negative on these matters. Bill Burns has a very close relationship with Mossad Director David Barnea. The Israelis actually, I think, are under an enormous amount of pressure, rising pressure from the hostage families, growing casualties, the IDF's understanding that they may well have reached the limit of the most intense kinetic phase, and a pause, two months, which the Israelis could resume against Hamas leadership would, in fact, do a couple of things. It would allow a surge, not a dribble of humanitarian assistance, which is badly needed in the Gaza. It would free the 100 plus hostages that remain, and the return of the 20 or 30 that the Israelis believe are no longer living, either killed on October seventh, their bodies taken to Gaza to trade for Palestine prisoners or died in captivity. I think it would offer some respite. Badly needed. Will what's happening with respect to this attack in Tantf derail that? I don't think so. I think if Hamas and the Israelis both want to pause, then the US is well-positioned, I think, right now to try to deliver one.

But remember, Middle East negotiations only have two speeds, Jim. It is slow and slower. So this may take some time.

All right, Colonel Leiden, Aaron David-Miller. Thanks so much to both. You really appreciate the insights on an important night. A lot of critical things happening, I think, in the next couple of days ahead. We'll stay on top of it. I really appreciate it. Thanks so.