Joe Biden, another warmonger in the Oval Office

The first military action under taken by Joe Biden as president of the United States was to bomb Syria cementing himself as another warmonger in the Oval Office.

The facile claim that these strikes were defensive in nature is an absurdity coming from an occupying force, a fact which most seem to gloss over. This was a violation of Syria's sovereignty and territory, and another act of imperialist aggression.

On February 25th 2021, the United States bombed the Syrian Arab Republic, on the border between Iraq and Syria around Abu Komal, which is located in the Deir ez-Zor province in eastern Syria. According to the Syrian Arab news agency four were wounded and one person was martyred.

Shortly after the attack the Pentagon released a statement saying:

"At President Biden's direction US military forces, earlier this evening, conducted airstrikes against infrastructure utilized by Iranian backed militant groups in eastern Syria. These strikes were authorized in response to recent attacks against American and coalition personnel in Iraq, and to ongoing threats to those personnel. Specifically, the strikes destroy multiple facilities located at a border control point used by a number of Iranian backed militant groups".

Pentagon Press Release

This statement claims that the strikes were defensive, which is an absurdity in and of itself, Syria has not bombed the United States, nor declared war on the United States. Syria is on the other side of the planet. The United States has no business being in Syria.

Moreover, the claim that they were meant for de escalation simply does not compute; bombing another country is tantamount to a declaration of war, not de escalation.

International condemnation of airstrike

China, Venezuela and Iran all condemned the attack.

Russia's Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, strongly condemned the bombing and called for unconditional respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria, which should not be used to settle geopolitical scores.

So according to the Biden administration this attack on Syria was a response by the United States to recent attacks on its personnel.

Now it's widely assumed by the media that what they're referring to is a rocket attack that took place on February 15 in Erbil in Iraq, where an American contractor was killed and six others were wounded, including an American soldier, and then another instance on February 22 when a rocket landed inside the green zone in Baghdad, where the US Embassy is located. It is the biggest embassy in the world, almost the size of Vatican City, which looks more like a military installation than anything else.

So while the United States claims it's defending itself and responding to rocket attacks, it conveniently leaves out the obvious; that the United States is in Iraq illegally. It illegally invaded Iraq in 2003 along with Britain; the US led coalition has no right to be in Iraq in the first place, nor in Syria for that matter.

So you can't talk about defending yourself when you are the aggressor, when you are the oppressor, when you are illegally on someone else's land, you're not defending yourself when you're on someone else's land you are attacking.

Moreover, the United States has imposed crippling sanctions on Iran which are indeed a form of siege warfare; it assassinated General Soleimani, it has violated Iran sovereignty numerous times, yet the US is not officially at war with Iran, so why is it bombing Iranian backed militias? Is that supposed to make it acceptable?

PMU not Iranian troops

When the US talks of Iranian backed militias what they really mean are the popular mobilization forces, the PMU, or in Arabic, the al-Ḥashd ash-Sha'ʿbī.

These are not Iranian troops. They were a popular resistance movement, made up of various local ethnic, religious groups which include Shia, Sunni, Christians, Druze, but fought very hard to defeat Daesh, and to resist occupation.

But of course the United States can't speak of them as a popular resistance because then people would rightfully wonder what they are resisting, which would expose the United States, and their allies, as illegal occupiers, as an invading force which has no right to be there in the first place.

As long as a Pentagon official or a stenographer from the White House says, Iran or Iranian backed militias, that's all it takes for everyone's brains to suddenly shut down and just accept that Joe Biden is bombing another sovereign nation.

First of all, whether Iran has troops, or militias as the US likes to call them, in Syria, or the other way around, this is a matter between Iran and Syria.

The United States has no right to interfere in the internal politics, alliances, partnerships and cooperation between those two countries.

Would the United States just accept it if Syria bombed Korea for having an American base there? Of course not. So this is not a valid argument.

Syria is a sovereign nation, Iran is a sovereign nation, Iraq is a sovereign nation. But of course this is of no concern to the Americans and British who have colonized the region for centuries, plundering and stealing resources and meddling in the region's political affairs.

Donald Trump assassinated General Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's Quds force along with a senior commander of the al-Ḥashd ash-Sha'bī, the PMU, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

Now Joe Biden bombs the PMU inside Syria. Both these actions only serve to help Daesh. And this wouldn't be the first time, of course, that the United States and its military actions, whether purposely or not, end up helping Daesh, who are seeking to take over Syria and Iraq.

US habit of bombing those who fight Daesh

In 2016 US warplanes killed 62 Syrian troops in an airstrike and wounded more than 100. These troops were directly involved in the fight against Daesh.

Again in 2018, the US bombed Syrian and Russian troops inside Syria, which only serves to help the foreign backed terrorists, which they were fighting in the first place.

But on top of that they're not only benefiting Daesh with these actions. Israel is, at the very least, very sure to be happy about Biden's decision to bomb Syria. After all, for years Israel has been routinely bombing Syria, almost on a weekly basis, taking advantage of the fact that Syria is crippled by war and sanctions.

Usually Israel almost never admits to the illegal assassinations or bombings that it carries out against other nations and governments, but Israeli officials have previously confirmed that they have carried out close to 1000 airstrikes on Syria in the last decade alone.

Same story, different reaction

Taking into account how close Israel and the United States are in their shared interests, it's not surprising of course that Joe Biden uses the exact same pretext.

Donald Trump bombed Syria in 2018 over the alleged chemical gas attacks in Douma.

 At the time democrats like AOC and Kamala Harris rebuked Trump, citing the illegality of the strikes yet now they're mostly silent on Biden? This seems to be a case of double standards considering the reaction from the media and Democrats.

Max Abrams, associate professor of Political Science at Northeastern University, and fellow at the Quincy Institute, gives his assessment.

I see what you're saying and I could definitely go that route. I have seen what you're describing, which is apparent hypocrisy by Kamala Harris, talking about illegality, Syrian sovereignty. And now she's the Vice President, and there doesn't seem to be any respect for Syrian sovereignty.

That said, I see more continuity than differences, because, although Trump, you know, was very reviled in the American public, especially in the media. One of the very few things he ever did in his whole life that was celebrated in aggregate was attacking Syria.

You'll remember that Fareed Zakaria said after he (Trump) authorized the strike: Congratulations, you know, Donald Trump, you know it's like your first day as president you've finally become a real president. And so, if you want to be popular, regardless of whether you're on the American political left or right, with the exception of the fringes, but sort of mainstream left, mainstream right, yeah attack Iran, attack Syria. And, you know, people people will quibble but in general, there is political value for that decision making.

Max Abrams, associate professor Northeastern University, fellow at the Quincy Institute

Speaking of continuity, Donald Trump assassinated General Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Quds force and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a senior commander of the PMU.

The PMU were hit once again less than a week ago in the airstrike ordered by Biden.

Is there continuity in that and their general policy towards Iran, and who exactly stands to benefit the most here? Whether the United States calls them "Iranian backed militias" or not the PMU have still contributed enormously in the fight against Daesh, against ISIS. So who's benefiting the most from what just took place exactly?

When Trump authorized the killing of Soleimani it was depicted as controversial in the United States. And he was criticised by Democrats whereas clearly under Biden, we are seeing a continuity of targeted killing. And so there is hypocrisy there, with respect to who benefits, I think that one of the beneficiaries is Israel. I think that Israel, its greatest threat, according to Israeli officials, is this, it's described as a land bridge from Tehran, to Beirut, particularly this access the Iranian government and Iranian militia groups, all the way into the Levant, and so I think that Israel recognizes that the Biden administration is not as categorically reflexively pro Israel, as the [Trump] administration was.

Now don't get me wrong, I still expect the Biden administration to be very pro Israel, but not to the same degree as Trump was, you know that they named towns and things after Trump but I'm not sure they're going to do that with Biden.

So, a lot of people (thought), the conventional wisdom in the American media was that Biden was sending a signal to Iran. I actually think that the signal was to Israel more, saying, we're not going to tolerate this kind of landbridge, and even though there was this delay from Biden contacting Netanyahu. Don't worry. The Biden administration is going to look out for Israel, just as Trump did.

I think that, probably, the attack doesn't really surprise Iran all that much. It probably doesn't fundamentally affect US Iranian relations. I think that it's not as significant, in the history books this will not be registered as an event in terms of that important bilateral relationship.

I do think that the media has done a very bad job, an intentionally bad job, in describing the relationship between Iran and ISIS.

The American media likes to downplay the fact that Iran has been, not only at odds with ISIS, but one of ISIS's primary enemies, especially on the ground. And that was true both in Iraq as well as in Syria, there's an inverse relationship between them and ISIS.

And so, there is a concern that if Iran were continued to be ill treated, as well as Russia, which has also been deeply maligned... in the American media in all sorts of ways but especially with respect to its relationship to Salafi jihadists but that could create the kind of space for ISIS and Al Qaeda and affiliated jihadists to grow.

Max Abrams, associate professor Northeastern University, fellow at the Quincy Institute

One thing not talked a lot about in the media is how this is going to affect the Iran nuclear deal, the JCPOA.

The US administration says they're open to more talks with European partners, although Iran says it wants sanctions lifted first.

Are these strikes going to affect the Iran nuclear deal and diplomatic endeavors in any way?

As you and your guests very well know, under Biden the Obama administration really helped to broker the Iran nuclear deal and so when Trump, effectively, destroyed it, and then Biden would get elected, one would think that, particularly because the nuclear deal was cast as Obama and Biden's, one of their biggest, most important foreign policy legacies, you would expect them to just continue forward, and to do whatever it takes to jumpstart this deal, which they were highly critical of Trump for derailing.

But they haven't done that, actually, you know they've added all these additional hoops. Who's gonna go first? Is there going to be (sanctions) relief? Is is the nuclear deal going to be fundamentally changed or are they going to add provisions to it? Are they going to include more features like, with respect to rockets and support for for militant groups? All of this kind of talk increases the odds that the nuclear deal will not be recommenced.

And so it is a little bit surprising how tepid they are in pushing this negotiation forward. So there seems to be a lack of clarity and the lack of bravery from this administration and I think that we see that in the Iran nuclear deal.

Max Abrams, associate professor Northeastern University, fellow at the Quincy Institute

Couldn’t the democrats actually do something to limit the scope of the AUMF? Do you see anything happening there, you know, since they supposedly control the House and the Senate?

It'll be interesting to see how much this administration can moderate its inclination which is to get increasingly involved in the region, at a time when the American public is turning away.

I think that the administration is simply going to re frame, and recast, some of the same behaviors, but in different terms. So, we see a continuation of the use of American military force and intervention, but there's a real emphasis by the Biden team to say that it's defensive in nature.

We've seen this with the weapons going to Yemen, they are defensive, you know, see the US attacking Iraq, supposedly Iranian targets on the, on the Syrian border and its defences.

So I think that there's a real sort of PR effort to present the United States as good guys, even if the US will continue to liberally use military force, including probably promoting its freedom agenda, which it knows has taken on a negative connotation.

And so perhaps that won't be as much of an emphasis as, for example, under the George W Bush administration, when neoconservatives, you know, would just exclaim very loudly that our goal is to promote democracy throughout the region.

Max Abrams, associate professor Northeastern University, fellow at the Quincy Institute

At the end of the day, we really get to see once again how Biden and his policies are just a continuation of the same old playbook. As a matter of fact, they're almost indistinguishable from those of his predecessor, Donald Trump.

Donald Trump put sanctions on Syria, Biden keeps them. Donald Trump steals Syria's oil, Biden also steals Syria’s oil. Trump builds illegal military bases in Syria, Biden keeps them and builds more illegal bases in Syria. Trump bombed Syria in 2018, Biden also bombed Syria in 2021.

That's not the lesser of two evils. That's precisely the same evil continued.

When Trump imposed sanctions on Syria in June, 2020, we all knew that civilians would be hurt the most, that people would starve, in a country already ravaged by a decade of war.

Would Joe Biden, who people call the lesser of two evils, to reverse this? Of course he would not.

Secretary of State Blinken, who was his foreign policy adviser during the campaign, told The Washington Post that Biden thought the sanctions were a very important tool. These sanctions have crushed the lira the Syrian pound, Syrians are forming bread lines in a country that once used to be self sufficient, and a net exporter of wheat.

Within days of Biden taking office we saw a convoy of US trucks illegally cross over from Iraq into Syria, through the Edward Lee border crossing, as they always do, on their way to steal more oil.

The Syrian Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Bashar Ja'afari, warns Joe Biden:

"The new US administration must stop acts of aggression and occupation, plundering the wealth of my country, withdraw its occupying forces from it and stop supporting separatist militias, illegal entities and attempts to threaten Syria's sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity".

Bashar Ja'afari

Of course Joe Biden has not taken heed and done no such thing.

And despite a statement by the Pentagon that their priority isn't the oil, Biden still has US troops building bases in Syria illegally, occupying Syria's oil fields illegally, and just like Trump bombed Syria now we see Biden bombing Syria, although not over chemical weapons, but another one of the media's favorite Bogeymen; the so called "Iranian backed militias".

At least in 2018 Kamala Harris, who's now the vice president, rebuked Trump saying she was deeply concerned about the legal rationale of the strikes.

Really? She was concerned about the legal rationale of such strikes? That's wonderful.

Let us hope she maintains that same attitude towards Joe Biden, although it highly unlikely she will.

The "mad king"

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez called Trump a "mad king" who decided to "bomb a nation without the constitutional requirement of congressional approval", and yet unlike in 2018, suspiciously, AOC is nowhere to be found right now. She has been completely silent on Joe Biden’s airstrikes on Syria.

But she is not alone in this silence, almost every single progressive member of Congress, the so called "squad", has said nothing, with the exception of Ilan Omar. She correctly pointed out how outrageous the AUMF is due to the sweeping powers that it gives a president, fundamentally, you know, we still don't see any mention of actual consequences.

Where's the plan to get rid of the AUMF, where are the consequences for Joe Biden's actions and violating his oath of office and bombing a sovereign nation? We’re not hearing, hearing any of it. They're all quiet.

Surely the American people are happy to see that one of Joe Biden's first accomplishments in office has been to bomb Syria.

Americans, the very same Americans who have yet to see any of those relief checks they were promised which were originally $2,000 now reduced to $1,400, the same Americans who were told they can't have a minimum wage, a $15 minimum wage, through budget reconciliation, even though Biden said it would be a top priority and made it one of the pillars of his campaign.

The same Americans who were told no more kids in cages, which also turned out to be a lie. The kids are no longer separated from their parents, perhaps, but they're still locked up in nicer looking cages with air conditioners.

The same Americans who were told an erratic Donald Trump would be defeated and replaced with Biden, who would restore the soul of the nation and dignity to the White House.

It seems Americans were told a lot of things, a lot of nice things. And not just by Biden's campaign, but even by intellectuals and scholars who claimed he would be less dangerous than Trump.

There is diversity if not honesty

Well, as far as theory is concerned. That's nonsense. But it's okay though, because remember, at least now there's diversity. Remember, your promise diversity and unity by the Biden administration.

So now you have Lloyd Austin, the first black man to lead the Pentagon who also happens to be a former board member for the weapons manufacturer Raytheon, or the fact that Kamala Harris is the first Asian American and female Vice President or that Avril Haynes is the first woman to be Director of National Intelligence.

Apparently that makes everything okay, just put a bunch of rainbows on the bombs and everything will be okay, right.

Of course the neo cons, and proponents of the war on terror will tell you that Biden does have the right to carry out military strikes on other nations, under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the AUMF, which was signed into law in 2001 2002, giving, Carte Blanche, a blank check, to the Bush administration, and every administration since, to invade other countries, order drone strikes and assassinations and run wild with any foreign policy decision, generally do as they please.

Many have rightfully criticized the AUMF and have called it unconstitutional for the sweeping powers, that it gives the commander in chief who can effectively bypass Congress and go behind its back to attack other countries.

But even if the entire US Congress had approved this imperialist attack on Syria, that would still not make it okay. The US Congress is not the world police. Its decrees are neither universal nor are they absolute.

Biden's airstrikes on Syria are, first and foremost, a violation of international law, the United States has no right to attack a sovereign nation, let alone another member of the United Nations.

This clearly violates the United Nations Charter, specifically article 2.4 which says that all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

But of course, it's not about loss. It's about language, it's about PR. So under Trump, the kids in cages, that's called concentration camps, but under Biden they are "migrant overflow facilities". And when Trump bombs Syria, they decry him as a Mad King. But when Biden does the same thing, they are "defensive airstrikes", you know, let's just go ahead and remove the word imperialism from the dictionary. Let's replace it with Biden's unity slogan instead, shall we?

So while Biden's administration claims, it's more diverse, let's be frank with each other year, there's no diversity in terms of policy. You know, he can paint as many transgender flags and put as many black lives matter decals on the bombs as you want. But these are the same imperialist tactics, the same imperialist agenda used by every president before him.

This is just a furthering of America's imperialist interests. And its Neo con behavior, which the US has been carrying out in the Middle East for the past decades, crippling Syria, crippling Syria's allies, being hawks on Iran, continuing to occupy Iraq illegally. That's what it comes down to. And there's no difference there. So to claim diversity, this means absolutely nothing for the people who are under those bombs when they fall.

As a matter of fact, it means nothing for Americans who are also being given the short end of the stick and robbed of their own wealth so that the military industrial complex, weapons manufacturers and private corporations can make loads of money and build swimming pools for themselves while the general public starves. That's what it comes down to. There's no diversity there.

A look back at history

Damascus, the capital of Syria, is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world, thousands of years old. Many civilizations and many empires have tried to capture Syria, many foreign invaders and their armies have tried to take the Middle East, and claim Syria as their own, none of them lasted forever.

Look around Syria and you will find nothing but the ruins of those very empires who thought they would last forever, as history shows us every dog has its day, Empires rise and empires fall yet Syria shall always persevere.

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.co.uk