American foreign policy in recent history has been muddled by a series of promises that are eventually broken by politicians backed by strong defense industries who have been beneficiaries of the never ending war in the Middle East. While Bush pioneered war in Iraq, it was ultimately succeeding presidents who enabled constant war. President Obama, while campaigning on the idea of change in foreign policy failed to deliver on his promise. Under his presidency, war became more prevalent than ever before, as the U.S expanded its presence from Iraq and Iran into neighboring nations. President Trump similarly used populist rhetoric in his campaigns, promising that his outsider status would ultimately help him be different from Obama. He too, failed in his promise. While nominal peace deals were used to market his supposed success, the President continued a policy of drone strikes in the Middle East, most notably killing General Solemeni in Iran. President Biden campaigned on a centrist agenda. Like those preceding him, he promised to end the never ending wars in the Middle East. Less than two months into his presidency, this promise already seems jeopardized. On February 25, President Biden ordered airstrikes on militia groups in Syria that marked the first explicit use of force in his presidency.

To put these actions in context, in early February Iranian backed militia groups launched a missile attack, ultimately killing and wounding multiple American soldiers (Cooper, Helene and Schmitt). It is important to note that geopolitical tensions dictate the extent of the conflict and who the U.S sides with. Historically, the U.S has worked with Iraq to combat extremist groups, and both nations, in recent years, have had a cordial relationship. Iran, on the other hand, has been a source of dispute for the U.S, as Iran has resisted western influence and resisted joint extremist combatting efforts. Iran and Iraq both also have a strained conflict due to a long history of religious disputes. Iraq is ruled and has a majority Sunni Muslim population, while Iran is ruled and has a majority Shiite based population. Differing interpretations have made diplomacy between these two groups difficult and continued conflict has emerged. Specifically, Iran has sponsored various Shiite militia groups in Iraq as a means to try and destabilize the Sunni government and empower Shiite’s. This has placed Iran in direct confrontation with the U.S, as the U.S closest ally in the Middle Eastern Conflict is Iran. That being said, there have been attempts to proliferate the diplomatic barriers between Iran and the U.S. Most notably, the Iran Nuclear Deal, which Biden has expressed interest in resigning, would have been a first step in demilitarizing the region and creating a pathway to a viable economic state. With President Trump’s backing out of the nuclear deal, the relationship between the two nations has once again become strained which has led to the current conflict.

 Biden’s initial air strike was intended to hit two targets near the Syrian border with Iraq which would destroy camps that intelligence reported was being used by militias as an outpost (Cooper,Helene and Schmitt). However, near the time when the bombs were supposed to be dropped, Biden called off one of the airstrikes as it would kill civilians including a child (Lubold). However, he continued with the first planned airstrike and dropped “seven 500-pound bombs dropped on a small cluster of buildings at an unofficial crossing at the Syria-Iraq border used to smuggle across weapons and fighters” (Cooper,Helene and Schmitt). A minimum of 22 people died in the bombing, as officials in the Biden administration were quick to defend the President’s decision as being a necessary use of force to protect American lives and interests (Luce). Biden’s aides and officials were also quick to point out the strategic nature of the airstrikes. As Iraq is a key ally in the Middle East, bombing the militia group in Iraqi territory would have likely angered the Iraqi government and prevented future peace talks. By bombing these militia groups in Syria, Biden essentially wanted to maintain the current current relationship with Iraq. To his credit, this idea reportedly has paid off as Iraqi Prime minister, Mustafa al-Kadhimi, reportedly agreed with Biden’s assertion that the military strike was a necessary move. The Syrian foreign ministry on the other hand was taken aback by the strikes and condemned the U.S for what they saw as an unlawful attack in their own country (Luce). 

As the diplomatic consequences of this attack unfolds it is necessary to look into the future to understand the type of diplomatic and foreign policy the Biden administration will enact. Biden’s centrist stance makes him susceptible to defense lobbying that has been prevalent in current politics. In the last two decades alone, defense industries spent a combined 2.5 billion dollars on lobbying, influencing both sides of the aisle (Auble). While Biden promised to not take money from lobbyists, his promise was broken on the campaign trail, when he took money from Lockheed Martin. His connection with defense industries is the first obstacle in the way of creating peace in the Middle East. Another major obstacle is his reluctance to astray from President Obama’s shadow. It is no secret that President Biden has modeled his campaign off of President Obama’s in order to gain the trust of the public. If his foreign policy is an extension of Obama’s, then any resolution has a bleak future. Biden would have to break the mold of past presidents and shed his centrist shell. However, there are also positive factors in play now that make the future of American policy hopeful. Many prominent members in Biden’s own party have come out against the attacks and have put strong pressure on the President to leave the Middle East. Even certain Republican legislative members have vocalized support for ending war ensuring that there is bipartisan support in the House and Congress that could act to limit Biden’s military actions. This response by lawmakers is finally reflecting the will of the people as a stronger coalition is built everyday towards peace. While Biden’s foreign policy thus far in his presidency has been lackluster, there is also hope he can adopt a more progressive administration due to his success in other legislative realms like the covid relief bill, vaccine rollout and foreclosure moratorium. Ultimately, Biden has the power to change the course of America drastically, but the fight to push him in the right direction will be filled with different actors with different agendas. 

Works Cited

Auble, Dan. “Capitalizing on Conflict: How Defense Contractors and Foreign Nations Lobby for Arms Sales.” OpenSecrets, www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/capitalizing-on-conflict. 

Cooper, Helene, and Eric Schmitt. “U.S. Airstrikes in Syria Target Iran-Backed Militias That Rocketed American Troops in Iraq.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Feb. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/02/25/us/politics/biden-syria-airstrike-iran.html. 

Lubold, Gordon, et al. “WSJ News Exclusive | Biden Called Off Strike on a Second Military Target in Syria Last Week.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 4 Mar. 2021, www.wsj.com/articles/a-military-strike-in-syria-shows-biden-team-at-work-11614866795. 

Luce, Dan De, et al. “Biden Orders Airstrikes in Syria, Retaliating against Iran-Backed Militias.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 26 Feb. 2021, www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/biden-airstrikes-syria-retaliating-against-iran-backed-militias-n1258912. 

Slodysko, Brian. “Biden Taps Influence Industry despite Pledge on Lobbyists.” AP NEWS, Associated Press, 3 Sept. 2019, apnews.com/article/5da8bb5b8af8467286ae0f4e37bd2905.