President Joe Biden is contemplating a response to a recent deadly drone attack on a U.S. base in Jordan, which claimed the lives of three service members and left over 40 wounded. While Biden affirms the need for a strong reaction, the challenge lies in finding a balance to avoid escalating tensions in the Middle East.

Biden has a range of options, from direct strikes inside Iran, including on the Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force, to hitting Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria. The President aims to deter further attacks without triggering a broader conflict in the region.

Directly striking Iran is considered the riskiest option, potentially enraging Tehran and inflaming militia groups. Alternatively, targeting Iranian assets outside the country, such as military installations in Syria, is seen as a less escalatory approach.

Hitting Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria again appears to be the most likely move, given their history of launching attacks on U.S. military installations. Some argue for a more substantial response, citing the need to avoid appearing weak and deterring future aggression.

Congressional pressure is mounting, with lawmakers urging retaliation. Some advocate for direct strikes on Tehran, while others suggest targeting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Quds Force spread across the region. However, many lawmakers emphasize the importance of a strategic and thoughtful approach to prevent further escalation.

The White House hints at a "tiered approach," suggesting a response that may go beyond military actions. Concerns about militia members going into hiding may necessitate a staggered response over days to locate and target senior commanders or key locations effectively.

Economic sanctions are presented as a non-military option, with the possibility of imposing meaningful economic and military costs on Iran. This approach aligns with the Biden administration's routine use of sanctions to curb the flow of funds to Iran and its proxies.