Biden wanted to warn Tehran that, in the event of further attacks “by proxy”, the US will react on all targets connected in some way to Tehran. And the message is also directed within the US: “You have a president who is also ready to use force to protect American interests”. The analysis by Carlo Jean
On Friday morning, American planes bombed Shiite militias linked to Iran in eastern Syria, near the border with Iraq, in retaliation against the attacks that Iraqi Shiite militias, also linked to Tehran, had carried out February 15 in Erbil, Iraqi Kurdistan. In these attacks, a US contractor had died and 15 others, as well as an American soldier, were injured.
The American bombing of Syria would have resulted in the deaths of over fifteen militiamen, which the Pentagon called a “proportional and limited retaliation”. The news of the bombing would have passed over in silence, despite the “obligatory” protests of the Russian and Syrian governments, had it not been the first time that Biden authorized the use of force and, in this particular case, the impact that it can have a look at the situation in the Middle East.
The traditional American policy of engagement in the area has been modified by two facts. First, from the shale revolution, which released US energy dependence on the Middle East, causing a partial strategic disengagement. Second, Biden’s intention to restore US participation in the Nuclear Pact with Iran and to adopt a more human rights-centered policy, undoing Trump’s excessive alignment with Saudi Arabia.
While the first reason remains unaffected, the second is encountering difficulties, especially in the US Congress and Senate. They demand that the end of the sanctions in Tehran and the US re-entry into the Treaty are accompanied by further measures, which protect the Gulf from Iranian aggression, supported by Iraqi, Syrian and Lebanese Shiite militias. The Iranian radicals are opposed to such measures and can rely on a large part of the patriotic Iranian population. Biden’s plans to resume negotiations with the Ayatollahs have stalled.
This perhaps explains the Pentagon’s expression of “proportionate retaliation”. In fact, at least in terms of losses, it was not proportionate. Biden’s main fear is that he seems too soft.
He did not want to react so much to the attacks in Iraq, but to issue a warning to Tehran, “flexing his muscles” and telling him not to hope to soften the US and induce them to make concessions by attacking their forces. It is the classic “escalation to des-escalete” maneuver used in the preliminaries of each negotiation to increase one’s bargaining chips.
Interestingly, in this regard, it is also the fact that the US retaliation for attacks in Iraq took place in Syria and that it targeted two groups of Shiite militiamen (Katib Hezbollah and Katib Sayyid al-Shubada) different from those who had declared themselves responsible for the attack on Erbil. The answer to the first question is clear. The US warned Baghdad of the retaliation three days in advance (Moscow with only 4-5 minutes!), Obtaining a favorable opinion or, at least, not against it. They still have 2,500 soldiers in Iraq (1,000 in Syria). They want to keep them in the country even if a popular referendum has called for their complete withdrawal. The answer to the second question must be more articulated.
Officially, the Pentagon claims that the names of the militias that claimed responsibility for Erbil were false. In fact, I think the US wanted to warn Tehran that, in the event of further attacks “by proxy”, the US will react on all targets connected in some way with Tehran. Of course, the message is also directed within the US: “You have a president who is not weak, but who is also ready to use force to protect American interests”.
In short, America is back not only in chatter, but with its bombers and its aircraft carriers.
