So they were back at the job again. U.S. fighter planes dropped bombs against Iranian-backed militias, in Iraq and Syria. This strike was made in response to Iranian-backed militias attacking U.S. troops and civilians in Iraq. It was also a response of a U.S. air attack on February 11, which was a response a militia attack days before.According to a Pentagon spokesperson, the U.S. has justified its most recent airstrikes by stating that they were necessary, appropriate and deliberative action to reduce the risk of escalation. However, counterattacks continue to follow similar strikes for decades or even decades. It is possible that we are increasing the risk of escalation rather than reducing it.AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementThe President Joe Biden is in a bind. He clearly doesn't want to increase U.S. military involvement there (hence his order to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan). In February, as well as now, he chose the smallest attack option recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in their briefing. He sent a message to Tehran's leaders after the earlier attack. He stated that he didn't seek to have a larger conflict with Iran and that they needed to control their militias in Iraq. The U.S. troops are in Iraq training and supplying local soldiers, who in turn fight remnants of ISIS and terrorist groups. This is a good thing for our national interests. A president can be reluctant to let go of troops under attack by U.S. forces. He feels that it is important to show that he values these attacks. These attacks do not cause him to pull out troops, even if that was the intention of the militias. Doing so would send the message that America is ready to run at the sight of blood, even if no American troops were actually killed.AdvertisementSubscribe to the Slatest Newsletter Get a daily email update with the latest stories. Signing you up was not possible due to an error Please try again. To use this form, please enable jаvascript. Email address: I would like to receive updates on Slate special offers. You agree to our Privacy Policy & Terms by signing up. Thank you for signing up! You can cancel your subscription at any time.The mere presence of U.S. forces abroad, and there are approximately 165,000 active-duty troops serving in over 150 countries, is a double-edged weapon: It may deter aggression against our ally or client-states, but in countries where conflict continues (or simmering), the troops could be tempting targets of opportunity to increase the profile of a militia or to apply more pressure on the Americans than the militias can bear or simply to cause chaos, as orderliness is not in the interests of the militias.AdvertisementThe American president is drawn in regardless of his intentions. These things happen even when presidents are very different. (The sequence of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, covers the most diverse range we've seen in two decades.AdvertisementLet's go back to the Pentagon press release: We can see that the airstrikes were necessary, appropriate and well-planned. However, they won't prevent escalation and send a clear message to Iran or its militias, who have threatened to open war on the United States. Even the Iraqi government which the U.S. troops purportedly protect (but must also kowtow to Tehran), condemned Biden's airstrikes for violating Iraqi sovereignty.This latest back-and forth teaches us another lesson. It seems that the Iranian militias now possess armed drones. Many believed that the CIA had invented these amazing weapons in 2001, and they were used to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. We are here.AdvertisementAdvertisementThe drones of Iran-backed militias aren't as advanced as ours. They are unable to receive GPS data from satellites. This allows them to pinpoint targets with pinpoint precision. Pilots who pilot a joystick and watch a monitor from far away can guide them. This feat seems far away. They (and other militias and small power) can launch small drones over shorter distances at altitudes too low for radar detection and then detonate explosives at the exact right moment and place.This is yet another example of military history you should be familiar with. It was widely believed that the Russians were too primitive to achieve our feat when the United States detonated the first atom bomb in 1945. They did it in four years. This illusion was echoed when American scientists created the hydrogen bomb, intercontinental ballistic missile and other complex military and civilian devices.AdvertisementOne could also argue that these items were necessary, appropriate, and intentional (or not). These inventions were the last rung of the ladder of escalation. Our adversaries could not or would not call our ante to propel another round of escalation.AdvertisementThe tit-fortat attacks could have wider consequences over the next weeks and months. Biden wants to restore the Iran nuclear agreement, which Obama, along with five other leaders (Britain France Russia China and Germany) signed in 2015. Trump pulled out three years later. Ebrahim Raisi was elected president of Iran in October, replacing Hassan Rouhani. Negotiations were stalled in Vienna earlier this month. The airstrikes will make it harder to reach a new agreement. They will make it more politically acceptable at home, convincing Biden's critics in the U.S. Congress that he wont tolerate Irans aggression within the region. Or will they make it more difficult for congressional critics to insist that any deal on Iran's nuclear infrastructure have limits on Irans ballistic missiles, and its support of terrorist groups. This is something that Rouhani, Iran's leader, has said they wont permit.AdvertisementObama's negotiators attempted to reach a comprehensive agreement that would end all disputes between the two countries in the initial stages of U.S.-Iran negotiations. This was back in 2013. They soon realized this was not possible and decided to focus on Iran's nuclear program. This was the most dangerous. Similar to the Cold War, U.S. diplomats and Soviet diplomats reached several agreements that limited or reduced nuclear arsenals, without affecting the ideology of either side or supporting nations or movements considered hostile.AdvertisementAdvertisementIt's not clear if such bilateral diplomacy between Iran and the U.S. is possible. It is not clear if the attacks were launched by militias to reduce diplomatic possibilities to keep tensions with America at a high-level, to justify Tehran's oppression of domestic critics or if tensions are spiraling completely by accident. However, the effects could be the same regardless of intent.AdvertisementTrump's final months as president saw Iran surpass the limits of the nuclear deal on enriching uranium. This was only one year after Trump reimposed economic sanctions against Iran. Both countries wasted precious time debating which side should take the lead in deescalating tensions. Should Iran reduce enrichment before sanctions were lifted by the U.S. or vice versa.The talks between the European nuclear deal co-signatories and both sides are running out of time. Furthermore, the bombings make a settlement less likely. At this stage, it is unclear whether either side wants to revive the nuclear agreement. If they do, diplomats will need to be more focused and faster in their work.
