The German Marshall Fund of the United States

  • Our Organization
    • About GMF
      The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) strengthens transatlantic cooperation on regional, national, and global challenges and opportunities in the spirit of the Marshall Plan.

    Transatlantic Offices

    • Washington, DC
    • Ankara
    • Belgrade
    • Berlin
    • Brussels
    • Bucharest
    • Paris
    • Warsaw
    • Alliance for Securing Democracy
  • Our Work
    • Policy
      GMF provides effective ways forward to solving today’s transatlantic policy issues.
    • Leadership
      GMF programs offer rising leaders dynamic opportunities to hone their leadership skills.
    • Civil Society
      GMF supports civil society by fostering democratic initiatives, rule of law, and regional cooperation.
    • Research
      GMF publications examine the challenges facing the transatlantic region today and offer policy recommendations to address these challenges.
    • Perspectives
      Media, blogs, podcasts, video on the issues shaping the transatlantic relationship.
  • Our Events
    • Major Conferences & Forums
      GMF brings together hundreds of policymakers, elected officials, academics, and business leaders from around the world to discuss topics from energy to migration, economics to security, urban growth to diplomacy.
    • Recent & Upcoming Events
      GMF is committed to bringing the policy community together around transatlantic topics. Learn about events in its offices and other locations around the world.
  • Our Experts
  • Stay Informed
Search
Home
  • Our Experts
  • ABOUT US
  • FOUNDING CHAIRMAN
  • EXPERTS
  • LATEST RESEARCH
  • NEWS&EVENTS
  • PUBLICATIONS
  • SUPPORT CHARHAR

The Charhar Institute

  • About Us

    • About Us
    • Founding Chairman
    • Membership
    • Contact Us
    • Careers
    • Support Charhar
  • Regions

    • All Regions
    • America
    • Europe&Middle East
    • Asia
    • Africa&Latin America
    • Indo-Pacific
  • Topics

    • All Topics
    • Public Diplomacy and International Relations
    • Belt & Road Initiative
    • The Korean Peninsula
    • Economic and Trade
    • Communication
    • Law, Culture and Religion
    • Energy, Safety and Peace
  • Experts

  • Publications

    • All Publications
    • Public Dipmacy Quarterly
    • Other books and reports
    • Charhar Public Diplomacy series
    • Charhar Newsletter
    • Charhar International Relations series
    • Introduction to Public Diplomacy
  • News&Events

    • News&Events
    • Public Diplomacy
    • Peace Studies
    • Belt & Road
    • Charhar News
    • Announcement
    • For Media
Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram LinkedIn
ForeignAffairs.com
  • ABOUT US
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Careers
  • FOUNDING CHAIRMAN
  • EXPERTS
  • LATEST RESEARCH
  • NEWS&EVENTS
  • PUBLICATIONS
  • SUPPORT CHARHAR

NEWS&EVENTS

Facing challenges, US' IPEF may make the Asia-Pacific economy more...

June 09, 2022

Behind Biden’s Asia Trip

June 09, 2022

US sinks its claws back into Somalia with an eye on China and Russia

May 23, 2022

The Taiwan Question amid Russia-Ukraine Conflict

May 06, 2022

China’s Oil Deal v.s. the Dollar Mar 28, 2022

March 28, 2022

Biden’s Indo-Pacific Foray

February 26, 2022
More

Energy, Safety and Peace

Sudan's 'military-civilian co-governance' dies halfway

November 03, 2021

Human rights standards shall not be monopolized

October 14, 2021

Law, Culture and Religion

Israel's diplomatic breakthrough in Maghreb faces challenges

December 11, 2020

Meng ruling makes Ottawa new front line between Washington and Beijing

May 29, 2020

Communication

He Wenping: Fake news fails in damaging Sino-African ties

January 31, 2019

Resistance from within the White House

September 10, 2018

Economic and Trade

Challenges for the G20 in overcoming the pandemic

November 26, 2020

Liberalization and non-interference by government will clean up Pakistan'...

July 07, 2020

The Korean Peninsula

Su Hao: Tokyo should give ground to resolve tensions with Seoul over ‘comfo...

June 26, 2019

Swaran Singh: Can next U.S.-DPRK meeting be expected?

June 12, 2019

Belt & Road Initiative

China-Africa unity sees friendship of new era

January 05, 2021

Unchangeable Commitment

February 19, 2020

Public Diplomacy and International Relations

The key to peace between Russia and Ukraine CGTN

March 03, 2022

Biden’s first year marked by lows and challenges

March 03, 2022
More

Introduction to Public Diplomacy

Diplomatic Theory and Practice

June 21, 2018

Introduction to Public Diplomacy 2nd Edition

June 20, 2018

Charhar International Relations series

International Public Product: China and the World at the Midst of Revolut...

June 21, 2018

Power and Wealth: Economic Nationalism and International Relationships und...

June 21, 2018

Charhar Newsletter

Charhar Newsletter

August 16, 2018

Charhar Public Diplomacy series

Winning the Chinese Hearts and Souls

June 20, 2018

City Diplomacy: China’s Practice and Foreign Experience

June 20, 2018

Other books and reports

The impotence of conventional arms control

March 25, 2020

How Did Stalin Fall into the “Thucydides Trap”

February 27, 2020

Public Dipmacy Quarterly

Public Diplomacy Quarterly

August 17, 2018
More

Multiple U.S. Military Targets

March 12 ,2021

At the direction of U.S. President Joe Biden, the American military carried out airstrikes on a site in eastern Syria used by Iranian-backed militia groups on Feb. 25, killing 17 militants. Just one month into his presidency, why did Biden, who appeared to be a gentle and cultivated man, decide to order military attacks in Syria to showcase U.S. global leadership? 

First, the airstrikes were intended to demonstrate that America is back and that it stands ready to return to the peak of its global power. Since Biden’s inauguration and the advent of a new administration, he and Secretary of State Tony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III have claimed on numerous bilateral and multilateral occasions that the United States is back, returning to multilateralism and the U.N. system, to its role in NATO and to healthy relations with European allies. But this return can’t be interpreted simply as the United States rejoining its allies; rather, it amounts to a reaffirmation of its global leadership. 

To enhance U.S. prestige in NATO countries and with its allies in Europe and the Middle East, Biden needed to do something big as proof of America’s commitment to global leadership. In fact, the airstrikes took place just after a series of meetings between the United States and its European allies — at the G7 Summit, the Munich Security Conference and with of NATO ministers of defense — all of which were designed to enhance internal solidarity. This fact shows that the extraordinary airstrikes were carried out by the Biden administration after consulting with the Europeans.

Second, it’s clear the airstrikes targeted Iran and Russia, even though the attack site was in Syria. The United States justified the airstrikes as a response to a mid-February rocket attack on U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq. That attack was said to be launched by an Iranian-backed militia group and resulted in casualties.

In fact, however, the airstrikes were carried out as the investigation into the rocket attack was still underway. Why? Iran has been moving to close the window of opportunity for the United States to return to the Iran nuclear deal.

In 2018, the Trump administration withdrew from the nuclear deal signed in 2015 under his predecessor, Barack Obama, and imposed comprehensive sanctions on Iran, ranging from a financial blockade to bans on oil exports. The following year, Iran adopted the salami-slice strategy of bypassing the deal’s restrictions on uranium enrichment and the number of centrifuges, among other things.

Biden’s victory in the presidential election in late 2020 raised high hopes in Iran that the U.S. might return to the nuclear deal. Iran is urging Washington to act faster to return to the nuclear accord by attempting to add pressure. In December, the Iranian parliament, which is dominated by hardliners, passed legislation that set a two-month deadline for the easing of sanctions.

“Time is running out for the Americans, both because of the parliament bill and the election atmosphere that will follow the Iranian New Year,” said Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in an interview in early February this year.

The Biden administration is aware of its European allies’ commitment to the Iranian nuclear deal, which came as a result of multilateral diplomacy, and has the intention to reverse Donald Trump’s “mistake” of pulling out of the deal. But it doesn’t like Iran’s policy of high pressure, stressing that Iran should first and foremost restrict its nuclear program.

On the other hand, Iran has asked the United States to lift sanctions first, claiming there is no room for negotiation over the text of the original deal. Obviously, the United States — a country used to giving orders and exercising what it sees as leadership on the world stage — finds it impossible to tolerate Iran’s tough stance. And with its airstrikes in Syria targeting Iranian-backed militia groups, Washington is sending a message to Tehran: Enough is enough.

At the same time, the strikes also targeted at Russia, an important source of support for Syria. Biden has been playing up the so-called threats posed by Russia and China since taking office, as he did during the campaign. To enhance solidarity with its allies and reenergize NATO, it is necessary to find a common enemy, and “the Russia threat” fits the bill. Compared with Ukraine and other close neighbors of both Russia and European countries, it is less costly and risky to launch military attacks in Syria as a warning to Russia.

The airstrikes meant that the United States doesn’t take the Syrian government or Russia seriously. Rather, it believes it can launch attacks whenever it wants, without giving a notice or a warning to either country beforehand.

The strikes exemplify the U.S. intention to reassert its influence in the Middle East and its refusal to stand idly by as Russian President Vladimir Putin expands his influence in Syria and the wider region. Washington sees the Middle East as its traditional sphere of influence and wants no other dominant actors in the region.


Source:China-US Focus, 2021-03-10

Author

HE Wenping

Adjunct Senior Fellow

Stay Informed

Don't miss our latest dynamic. Sign up to receive emailed news, events, opinion, and publication notifications.

Subscribe

Follow

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • Youtube
  • SoundCloud
  • Instagram
Charhar Institute
  • About Us
  • Founding Chairman
  • Experts
  • Latest Research
  • News&Events
  • Publications
  • Support Charhar
  • Careers

 

"The Charhar Institute is committed to promoting progress in China’s foreign policies and the development of international relations in a more orderly manner."
- Dr Han Fangming,Charhar Chairman

CONTACT US

  • Phone:+86 10 68290431
  • Fax:010-80777830
  • Email:secretariat@charhar.org.cn
  • Facebook:The Charhar Institute
  • Twitter:@CharharINST

©2022 Charhar Institute. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use