Fanning the flames of anti-americanism
IT IS purely disingenuous for US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to say that the US bombed two sites in Syria and one in Iraq last Sunday in order to avoid an escalation of conflict. It is like saying that to avoid a war you have to start one.
Blinken defended the US air strikes as a way to tamp down on the risk of conflict.
“We took necessary, appropriate, and deliberate action that is designed to limit the risk of escalation, but also to send a clear and unambiguous deterrent message,” Blinken said.
Syria and Iraq condemned the attacks as a flagrant violation of their sovereignty and national security.
The Biden administration says they targeted weapons storage facilities in both countries that they claim are used by Iran-backed militias that are engaged in unmanned aerial vehicle attacks against US personnel and facilities.
But foreign diplomats on the ground insist that the US narrative is false, and that the group they attacked, the Popular Mobilization Forces, have been instrumental in the fight against the Islamic State.
The US strikes can be perceived as a provocation, but will probably have more to do with putting pressure on Iran at a delicate time in discussions around reviving the Iran nuclear deal.
How such strikes would work to the US’S advantage is anyone’s guess, but Blinken did say it was about sending the Iranians a message – probably that the Biden administration won’t hesitate to take military action against Iran’s proxies in the region.
It is worth noting that this was the second such raid on pro-iran targets since President Joe Biden took office in January.
In February, he ordered attacks on targets in Syria. So much for Blinken’s assertion that US bombing would “limit the risk of escalation”. It served only to provoke retaliatory rocket attacks by Iranian-backed militias who fired missiles at the US base in the Omar oil field in the Deir al-zour countryside.
And so, US actions have once again ignited passions and anger on the ground in the Middle East, and led to a never-ending series of tit-for-tat attacks.
US forces then proceeded to shell the launch sites in the Deir al-zour countryside. But, as usual, the militia attacks resulted in no casualties, whereas the US attacks led to the deaths of a number of members of the Popular Mobilization Forces and others in the vicinity.
It is Iraq that is now calling on the US to pursue dialogue and diplomacy rather than fomenting violence within the borders of other countries.
Iraq is seeking to reduce tensions in the region rather than to stoke them, and does not want to become embroiled in a proxy war between the US and Iran.
Iraq is prepared to take countermeasures, saying that it will “study all legal options” to prevent such action being repeated.
Iraq has collaborated with the US military in fighting the remnants of the Islamic State in Iraq, but US aggression has sparked calls for revenge from Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-kadhimi.
If the US had wanted to move Iraq away from the influence of Iran, its strategy has probably backfired and pushed the two nations closer together.
The danger in such US war games is that the fighting may evolve into sustained confrontation, with an escalation in violence in a region that is on tenterhooks. It may also be a precursor to deepening US involvement in the region.
The US maintains that Iran is behind an escalation in increasingly sophisticated drone attacks and periodic rocket fire against US personnel and facilities in Iraq. Perhaps the more relevant issue is that it is time for the US to exit Iraq altogether as its presence is a lightning rod for all forces that want to ensure the territorial sovereignty of Arab nations.
The US claim that it remains in Iraq to fight the Islamic State is problematic as US troops on the ground are more likely to fan the flames of anti-americanism than to rid the world of the scourge of terrorism.