Editor's note: CGTN's First Voice provides instant commentary on breaking stories. The daily column clarifies emerging issues and better defines the news agenda, offering a Chinese perspective on the latest global events. 

On Thursday night the Biden administration ordered an air strike against an Iran-backed militia in Syria, the first military action of his presidency. Describing the incision as a "defensive retaliation," the move comes despite Biden having criticized the Trump administration for its killing of Major General Qassem Soleimani a year ago in a similar tit-for-tat fashion.

Reactions to the event have been two-fold: Firstly, few are surprised the new administration is opting to bomb places in the Middle East again, the continuation of a decades-old foreign policy legacy.

Secondly, the obvious contradictions are afoot in Biden espousing anti-war rhetoric whilst running for president, and then hastily embracing it whilst in office. This is something that the Obama White House he participated in also did.

The strike may not be as erratic as to how Trump handled the Iran issue, but it ultimately shows the U.S. will continue to be dragged into militarism in the region, and it has no fresh incentives for promoting stability in Syria.

Why Syria? The Syrian civil war is its own problem, but ultimately a subdivision of broader U.S.-Iran tensions which has effectively been a multifaceted geopolitical power struggle between numerous actors.

Iran's and Russia's friendliness with the Bashar Assad's authority has drawn them into direct confrontation with the United States, Saudi Arabia, Israel and others who have backed Sunni opposition forces.

This is a scenario that has now been going on nearly a decade, it's reduced Syria's sovereignty to a free for all, and there's been no breakthrough on a formal peace process.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration cared less about Syria, but nonetheless more on escalating tensions with Iran, driven by the likes of Mike Pompeo and John Bolton who worked to scuttle the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

During his final weeks in office, Trump doubled down on tough sanctions against Tehran to box Biden into a hawkish policy. Although the new presidency has set out to look for an avenue to negotiate with Tehran, EU-brokered talks on re-joining the deal are being put back.

Although not as erratic as Trump, Biden has nonetheless again opted for the military option. The move is unlikely to create a huge standoff like last year and bring the two countries on the brink of war, but nonetheless will escalate tensions further and set the stage intensified U.S.-Iran competition across the region.

The United States simply cannot keep its military foot out of the Middle East and shy away from the unilateralist use of force in a country it doesn't have a legal right to be in, completely contrary to international law.

If Biden is serious about opening dialogue with Iran, how can Washington again, as it was with the last administration, simply expect Tehran to make massive concessions on its own military capabilities when the U.S. reserves an unaccountable right for itself to bomb, target and destroy in the region?

Why would anyone agree to such one-sided terms?

This is another instance of Biden adopting Trump's policies but with a friendlier face.

Whilst the United States wants to shift the mantle of its foreign policy strategy to Asia or dubbed "the Indo-Pacific," the quagmire of the Middle East simply will not go away.

The more universalist and "value"-orientated approach of the Biden administration may make it even more prone to intervene in the region at the behest of so-called human rights than Trump himself was.

There is a long road ahead for U.S.-Iran relations, so the hopes for peace, stability and reconciliation in this area of the world will continue to be minimal.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)