Democrats in the US Senate are unhappy with the actions of their party member, President Joe Biden.

We are talking about an airstrike, which, on his order, was inflicted on the territory of Syria at the end of February.

Legislators say they are not satisfied with the way the administration of the head of state justified the move.

Moreover, the White House has not yet held a briefing for senators on this topic, explanations have been given only for congressional staff.

Connecticut Democrat Senator Chris Murphy attended the event to familiarize himself with the position of the presidential team.

However, he was not satisfied with what he heard.

“I was never convinced that any president has permission to retaliate — especially outside of Iraq,” the senator said.

He also expressed bewilderment that the Biden administration has not yet explained its position directly to parliamentarians: "It's somehow strange that in the light of something so significant and serious there was a briefing for the apparatus, but not for members of Congress."

  • Democrat Senator of Connecticut Chris Murphy

  • © REUTERS / Tom Brenner

Dissatisfied with the actions of Joe Biden and the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democrat Bob Menendez.

He noted that he continues to insist on holding a briefing by the White House for senators from the relevant committee.

Lawmakers are also disappointed with Biden's decision to launch strikes on Syria without prior congressional approval, as the president did not give them advance notice of the impending operation.

“I learned about this (the air force strike on the territory of Syria. -

RT

) from the news.

I am a member of the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee.

I do not think that I am supposed to find out about something like this in this way, "- quoted by Politico, the words of Senator Tim Kane from Virginia.

Earlier, a protest against the actions of the White House was expressed by the Democratic Congressman from California, Roh Hanna.

“Biden became the seventh American president in a row to order strikes against targets in the Middle East.

There is no justification for cases where the president, without congressional permission, authorizes a military strike that is not intended to defend himself in the face of an imminent threat, ”the senator said in a statement.

According to experts, the dissatisfaction of the legislators may be related to the desire of the Congress to increase its weight in the structure of government.

As Konstantin Blokhin, a researcher at the Center for Security Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, explained in a commentary to RT, historically in the United States there have been two centers for making political decisions - the Congress and the White House, which compete with each other for primacy.

“Congressmen do not so much condemn Biden's decision as they are dissatisfied with the fact that it was not they who made it.

The House of Representatives and the Senate always strive to ensure that the President consults with them on such issues, ”the expert noted.

  • US Senate

  • globallookpress.com

  • © Rod Lamkey

Valery Garbuzov, director of the Institute for the USA and Canada, shares a similar point of view.

“All foreign policy actions of the United States, and even more so military, in theory should be consistent with the legislative branch of government.

But more often than not, this does not happen, because military operations are being prepared under the secrecy label.

This has always caused criticism of the congressmen, "- explained the interlocutor of RT.

Strike policy

We will remind, on the night of February 26, the US Air Force struck several targets in eastern Syria.

Their goal was the infrastructure of Iranian-backed armed groups, the Pentagon said.

During the attack, the objects of the organizations "Kataib Hezbollah" and "Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada" were destroyed, the American defense department said.

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby has revealed some details of the bombing.

According to him, two American F-15 fighters dropped "seven high-precision rounds", destroying nine objects and partially destroying two more.

Kirby said the strikes were "defensive," as the destroyed structures were used for recent attacks on US troops and allies in neighboring Iraq.

“This commensurate military response was carried out along with diplomatic measures, including consultations with coalition partners.

The operation sends a clear message that President Biden will protect US and coalition troops, ”Kirby added.

  • Pentagon spokesman John Kirby

  • © US Marine Corps Sgt.

    Aaron hostutler

At the same time, Washington believes that the air strikes on Syria do not contradict the norms of international law, since they are designed to protect the United States from outgoing threats.

In mid-February, a US military base located in Iraqi Kurdistan was hit by a missile attack.

As a result of the shelling, one US citizen was killed and ten others were injured.

Commenting on the airstrikes, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Washington reserves the right to respond "at the right time and in the right form."

Against the background of these events, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced an increase in the alliance's mission in Iraq, which trains local military and law enforcement officers, from 500 to 4 thousand people.

And on February 22, the "green zone" of Baghdad was attacked, where state institutions and foreign diplomatic missions, including the US embassy, ​​are located.  

Joe Biden explained his decision to authorize a strike on Syrian territory by the need to respond to attacks from militant groups in Iraq.

"These groups are also involved in planning similar attacks in the future," said the US President's message.

"In this regard, I ordered this military measure to be taken to protect our military and our partners from these and further attacks of this kind."

  • American F-15 fighters

  • © REUTERS / Gleb Garanich

According to Konstantin Blokhin, the air strike on the rebels was a message from the new US administration to the whole world about American ambitions, as well as a signal to Moscow.

“Russia is an ally of Syria and a moderator of the negotiation process.

Washington makes it clear that it will test its strength not only in the zone of its interests, but also in the international arena, ”the expert said.

Valery Garbuzov adheres to a different point of view.

According to the expert, the White House was forced to issue the order to strike because of the threat to American troops stationed in Iraq.

“Therefore, the administration could not discuss this plan with Congress, because in this case the intentions would become known to the general public and would lose their meaning.

In addition, the strike was a signal to Iran to force it to play by American rules.

The Biden administration wants to return the JCPOA, but so that it does not look like the American side is apologizing for Trump's behavior, ”the expert noted.

According to him, Washington will repeat such attacks if it considers that the situation requires an immediate response.

Iranian aspect

Recall that in 2015, Iran and the six countries (Russia, USA, UK, China, France and Germany) signed a Joint Comprehensive Action Plan (JCPOA).

The agreement provided for Tehran's refusal to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for lifting sanctions.

Donald Trump, who won the 2016 US presidential election, criticized the "nuclear deal" from the outset.

In the spring of 2018, Washington unilaterally left the JCPOA and reinstated anti-Iranian sanctions.

Joe Biden has repeatedly stated that he does not share this approach and promised to return the agreements with Iran. 

  • Negotiations on Iran's nuclear program in 2015

  • © US Department of State

As Jen Psaki said at the end of February, the United States is "open to diplomatic conversation" and is ready for a discussion with the Islamic Republic and the countries of the Six.

At the same time, the United States does not plan to weaken anti-Iranian sanctions, Psaki added.

In turn, the head of the press service of the State Department, Ned Price, stated the failure of the policy of maximum pressure on Iran.

“The maximum pressure should have led to an improvement in the terms of the (nuclear -

RT

) deal.

With its help, it was supposed to pacify Tehran and the forces under its control, isolate Iran from the rest of the world, and also more reliably protect the interests of the United States.

In fact, in each of these areas, we got the opposite result, "- said the representative of the State Department.

Price added that Iran now has more opportunities to develop nuclear weapons than it did at the very beginning of Trump's presidency.

He explained that the new US administration is "stepping on a different path," where priority will be given to "honest diplomatic relations" with partners and allies.

Experts believe that although recent US actions were clearly directed against Iran's interests in the region, the parties still have a chance to return to negotiations.

“I don’t think the US Air Force strike completely sabotaged the prospect of resetting the nuclear deal.

It is difficult to judge how much damage this has caused the negotiation process and Tehran.

However, the Iranian side is ready for dialogue, ”concluded Konstantin Blokhin.