Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump said the U.S. “will be coming out of Syria very soon.” This Friday, he bombed the country. This leaves one scrambling to understand what the U.S. strategy is in Syria. The latest strike, jointly carried out by the U.S., the U.K. and France, is a retaliation to what they claimed was a chemical attack earlier this month in Douma near Damascus by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
The U.S. had carried out a similar missile strike last year after chemical attacks in Khan Shaykhun in Idlib. With Friday’s strikes, the White House could say that the President is serious about his chemical weapons redline — that he would strike Syrian regime targets if chemical weapons continue to be used.
But besides satisfying this threat perception, what did the attack actually achieve? To begin with, even the case for the U.S. strike has been weak and with no legal basis. Mr. Trump ordered the attack a day ahead of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the intergovernmental chemical weapons watchdog, began its investigation in Douma to ascertain if chemical weapons were actually used in the city.
When U.S. Defence Secretary Jim Mattis was asked what proof the U.S. has against the Assad regime over the Douma attack, he said he’s “confident” that the regime had the capability to carry out the chemical strike. He was not certain which type of gas — chlorine or sarin — was used in Douma.
If the U.S. and its Western allies had respect for a rules-based international order and the global institutions, it could have waited till the OPCW wraps up its investigation and then tried to build a consensus in the U.N. Security Council. If the OPCW confirms the use of chemical weapons in Douma, it could at least have busted the Russian claim that the attack was staged.
But Mr. Trump doesn’t appear to have the patience to follow the normal international procedure in dealing with the crisis like this. Instead, he went to war against another sovereign country without a U.N. mandate, flouting international laws again.
This time the U.S. response has been heavier than last April’s. This attack lasted for 70 minutes and more than 120 missiles were fired, twice as many weapons used. The strike also targeted multiple regime facilities in Damascus and Homs. But the attack also suggests that the U.S. options were limited in Syria.
Like last year’s strike, Friday’s attack was also a one-off incident. The Pentagon hopes Mr. Assad may have got the message. And the U.S. has been cautious enough to avoid Russian and even Iranian targets in Syria.
The U.S. faces two major challenges in Syria if it’s determined to take on the Assad regime. One is to avoid direct confrontation with Russia, the main backer of the regime, which has deployed military infrastructure and personnel across Syria. Even the Iranians could target U.S. positions elsewhere in West Asia using Shia militias if Tehran is provoked. The two Syria strikes by the U.S. suggest that Washington doesn’t want an escalation of that level. Nor do the Russians and the Iranians.
Before the strike, Moscow had warned of consequences. Still, during the 70 minutes of U.S. operations, Russian firepower remained silent.
Two, the U.S. still appears to be uncertain on how to deal with the Assad regime. It lacks a grand strategy — its responses are largely tactical. Washington doesn’t want the Assad regime to collapse leaving a power vacuum which it fears will be occupied by terrorist groups such as the Islamic State and al-Qaeda factions. This could be the key reason, besides the Russia factor, that prevents the U.S. from going for an all-out attack on Damascus seeking regime change.
Mr. Trump could claim that he punished the “animal Assad” for using chemical weapons, even at the expense of violating international norms, without really altering the balance of power in the battlefield. Mr. Assad is still winning the war, and the U.S. attacks will make him more dependent on the Russians and the Iranians.
Published - April 14, 2018 11:51 am IST
