During the presidential election of 2020, President Joe Biden ran with the promise of terminating the constant conflicts in the Middle East, also known by the epithet “the forever wars,” proposing to cultivate peaceful alliances and end drone strikes. Soon after his inauguration, his anti-violence stance shifted when a rocket attack on a U.S.-led military base took place in Erbil, Iraq on February 15, 2021. The attack killed a U.S civilian contractor and wounded five others who were stationed on the base. Afterwards, an Iranian backed militia group named Awliya al Da, claimed responsibility for the attack. Ten days later, Biden authorized retaliatory airstrikes on Iranian-backed militias located in Syria near the Iraq border. Biden did not ask for the necessary authorization from the United States Congress, and, instead, invoked Article 51 of the United Nations Charter because the initial attacks took place on an American military base, meaning the U.S. had the right to protect itself.

However, Biden’s instinctive use of drone technology so quickly after the initial attack shocked many progressives at the forefront of his presidential campaign. After decades of conflict within the Middle East, and with the change in U.S. political power and presidency, a collective consensus emerged among Democrats that these types of retaliatory measures would not be tolerated. Although Biden’s airstrikes on Iranian-backed militias were allegedly calculated in an attempt to mitigate casualties, the continued usage of drone technology could have dire ramifications. The authorization of drone strikes against Iranian backed militias by the Biden administration is extremely risky due to the instability of relations between the U.S and Iraq, as well as the efforts by different U.S administrations to first unravel and then mend the Iran nuclear deal (i.e., the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), and finally, the staggering rates of civilian casualties from drone strikes.

The complexities that arose as a result of these drone strikes have worsened the already unstable relationship between the U.S. and Iraq. In general, the United States has sharpened their focus on Middle Eastern security measures, which can be traced back almost a decade. Two years after the attacks of September 11, former president George Bush made the decision to invade Iraq. Years of violence followed the U.S. invasion, and it is estimated that, since 2003, upwards of 180,000 civilians have been killed as a result of the Iraq War.

Although the war generated massive instability in the region, the United States claims to be working towards rebuilding Iraq’s economic prosperity and implementing democratic practices. According to the U.S. Department of State, “U.S. bilateral assistance aims not only to bolster Iraq’s democratic institutions, but also to preserve the strategic, political, and economic importance of the U.S.-Iraq partnership in a changing Middle East region”. The U.S. proclaims that it is attempting to improve its relations with Iraq, yet the current actions of the U.S. in Iraq are often incongruent with its foreign policy statements. Biden’s retaliatory attack in February of last year was carried out on the Iraq border in Syria, which shocked many progressive voters, as there is a collective fear of backlash from the Iraqi government and general criticism of drone strikes. The attacks’ proximity to Iraq warrants concern as it challenges the consensus that Biden is developing policies to terminate the “forever wars” and restore peace and stability in the Middle East. As his presidency progresses, it is vital to be extremely critical of his administration’s foreign policy decisions, especially in war-torn areas. 

Throughout former President Trump’s term, he sought to dismantle the legacy of the Obama Administration, specifically with regard to U.S. withdrawal from the Iran deal. Trump indicated that this was a personal goal for him, and with the dissolution of the Paris Climate Deal and the shelving of the Iran deal, Obama’s cooperative legacy has been replaced by the isolationist policies of Donald Trump. The Iran deal, also referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), laid out a series of regulations on Iran’s nuclear activity. These regulations included limiting uranium production in order to elongate the time it would take for Iran to successfully build a nuclear weapon. These rules were formulated diplomatically by the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, along with Germany and the European Union. In May of 2018, Trump announced the United States’ official withdrawal, despite the fact that 63% of Americans believed the U.S. should not withdraw from the deal.

The withdrawal provoked a cataclysmic response from the Iranian government, as they only initially agreed to the JCPOA under the pressure of economic sanctions that the U.S. has held on the country since 2012. Iran was in compliance with the terms of the JCPOA, and the shelving of the deal by the Trump Administration has created difficulties for the Biden administration to rejoin the original deal. Moreover, since Trump’s withdrawal Iran has terminated the JCPOA’s uranium production caps and has recently begun building a centrifuge production center in the city of Natanz after the former center was destroyed. Iran has made it abundantly clear that they are not willing to renegotiate the terms of the nuclear deal with regard to uranium production. However, within the last week, there have been negotiations in Vienna between multiple European powers. A member of Iran’s national national security, Jalil Rahimi Jahanabadi, indicated that European countries and Iran are close to reaching a compromise, though there is still disagreement in regards to economic sanctions. Thus, Biden’s impulsive attack against the Iranian backed militias jeopardizes the U.S.’ attempts to revive an Iran deal,  as well as the current negotiations in Vienna. 

Yet, perhaps the most disastrous component of warfare in the Middle East is the abundance of civilian casualties that have occurred as a result of the continued conflict and drone usage. While there have been attempts on the Biden administration's part to minimize casualties by conducting the strikes in a way that does not kill civilians, miscalculations are unavoidable, which is evident in the September 17, 2021 attacks in Kabul, Afghanistan. This attack was authorized by the Biden administration and resulted in the deaths of 11 Afghani civilians, which the U.S. military openly admitted was a complete mistake. This miscalculation demonstrates the catastrophic consequences for civilian lives that drone warfare can have. It is vital to the foreign relations of the United States that the president must receive full congressional approval before conducting any air strikes, regardless of the targets’ affiliation to terrorist organizations. For almost a decade, the United States has placed the blame for these strikes on the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001 in response to September 11. This article grants the U.S. president the right to use any and all forces against groups associated with the attacks of September 11. Although Biden has indicated that he plans to dissolve the AUMF as a part of his policy agenda, he has yet to do so.  

The congressional approval of military action and drone strikes in the Middle East is essential moving forward. The United States president should not possess the sole power to authorize striking, and the actions that occurred in Syria and Kabul under the Biden administration were extremely perilous. Beyond escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iraq and jeopardizing the rejoining of the JCPOA, these strikes have truly illuminated that the Biden administration is not dissolving drone warfare. Furthermore, this increase in attacks via unmanned vehicles has politically desensitized the American public to targeted drone strikes abroad. This is mainly due to the absence of harm on American personnel when these attacks are conducted. The authorization of drone strikes from the safety of the Oval Office without congressional input, directed from a base on U.S. soil, may eliminate American casualties. However, it does not mitigate consequences to the United States.

MOST RECENT ARTICLE