Residents of Khan Sheikhun, site of an alleged chemical weapons attack, have welcomed US strikes as a way to pressure Damascus.
The recent attack is divorced from any strategic political vision. Trump administration needs concrete ideas to find a political solution
Published: Sun 9 Apr 2017, 9:02 PM
Last updated: Sun 9 Apr 2017, 11:09 PM
The US has launched its first punitive military strikes against the regime of President Bashar Al Assad of Syria since the civil war there began six years ago, a powerful message that Washington will no longer tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the civilian population.
President Trump's administration indicated that the strikes, which saw 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired at Syria's Shayrat airbase, were linked only to the chemical weapons attack on Tuesday that killed at least 86 people, including 27 children, in Khan Sheikhoun in rebel-held Idlib Province.
And while they may have chastened Assad, analysts say, they do not appear to signal a broader change of US policy on Syria that would pose a longer-term threat to his hold on power.
"This [missile attack] clearly indicates the president is willing to take decisive action when called for," Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters. "I would not in any way attempt to extrapolate that to a change in our policy or posture relative to our military activities in Syria today. There has been no change in that status."
Those comments might offer some reassurance to Assad that the air strikes were more a slap on the wrist than the beginning of a knockout blow. And with the war in Syria slowly turning in his favour - and with his two key allies, Russia and Iran, continuing to stand by him - Assad looks likely to stay in power, a reality that Syria's neighbours and the international community reluctantly have had to accept.
"We should not invest the limited American military attack with any strategic connotations so far," says Fawaz Gerges, a Middle East expert at the London School of Economics (LSE). "It's an attack divorced from any strategic political vision. It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration has any concrete ideas to find a political solution. I'm very sceptical."
Gerges warns, however, that military action on its own, absent a strategy, is inherently hard to contain, and could lead to an unintended deepening of US military involvement if Russia and Iran redouble their support for Assad even as Syrian rebels try to use the US strikes as leverage.
"This administration is enamored with hard power," says Gerges, author of the book, "ISIS: A History." But "without soft power - without diplomacy, and a political strategy - military actions might be counter-productive."
Julien Barnes-Dacey, a Middle East analyst at the European Council on Foreign Relations, warns that the strikes' ability to trigger an escalation derives from the region's very different perceptions of US military power, including fears in Syria and Iran that the ultimate objective could become regime change.
"Obviously, Trump has framed this through a narrow proliferation lens, and the attacks were very limited. But I don't think anyone else on the ground or internationally is going to see them through that same narrow lens," says Barnes-Dacey, speaking from Brussels.
"For [Syria's] opposition and its backers, there's long been a sense that once you get US skin in the game, an escalatory cycle will quickly take over."
Whether or not the retaliatory strikes have any impact on Assad's hold on power, his survival after six years of war has come at an increasing cost. Assad took office in 2000 on the death of his father, Hafez, and hopes were initially invested in him as a reformer who would modernise the ossified police state he inherited.
Seventeen years later, Assad has achieved an international pariah status unseen since the days of Iraq's Saddam Hussein. His country has been devastated, the economy ruined, an estimated more than 400,000 people are dead, and the conflict has created the largest refugee crisis Europe has witnessed since World War II.
His regime controls only about 35 per cent of Syria, with the rest carved up between various Arab and Kurdish militias and the extremist group Daesh. He stands accused of employing chemical nerve agents against his own population and executing tens of thousands of people in regime prisons. Even if the war subsides and thoughts turn to rebuilding, it is difficult to see which countries or what global institutions would be willing to bankroll a multi-billion dollar reconstruction process with Assad still enthroned in the presidential palace.
"Maybe Bashar will stay for some time now, but eventually, sooner or later [he will go], nothing stays the same in this region," Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri said recently, speaking to a group of foreign reporters. Hariri's father, Rafik, was assassinated in 2005, with Assad's Syria widely believed to have been involved.
"It would be foolish to think that this regime is still in control in Syria," Hariri added. "The people who are in control in Syria are the Russians and the Iranians."
Moscow, meanwhile, has reacted angrily to the air strikes, calling them an "aggression against a sovereign nation" and announcing an end to the de-confliction mechanism set up between Washington and Moscow to prevent accidental clashes between the US and Russian aircraft over Syria, where both nations fly ostensibly on "anti-terror" missions against Daesh.
The Pentagon alerted Russia before it launched the cruise missile attack, as well as Nato allies Turkey and Britain, and the Russian forces do not appear to have activated their S-300 and S-400 air defense systems, which could have intercepted some of the cruise missiles.
"There was an effort to minimise risk to third party nationals at the airport - I think you can read Russians from that. We took great pains to try to avoid that," Trump's national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, told reporters.
The Pentagon's target, meanwhile, an operational air base, is seen as having a negligible impact on Assad's ability to continue waging war. Initial accounts of the attack suggest that aircraft and hangars were destroyed and the runway rendered inoperable.
Assad's real military weakness, however, is not a lack of aircraft but insufficient ground forces to battle rebel groups, which is why his regime has had to rely on allies such as Iran, Lebanon's Hezbollah, and Shiite paramilitary forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia's contribution to the Assad war effort has been mainly air support, and Moscow could deploy more aircraft to Syria if needed to plug any shortfall caused by US bombing.
On Thursday, Assad was quoted as repeating his determination to claw back the entire country, telling a Croatian newspaper that there was no "option except victory."
"If we do not win this war, it means that Syria will be deleted from the map," he told Vecernji List newspaper. "We have no choice in facing this war, and that's why we are confident, we are persistent, and we are determined."
Assad's critical manpower shortage may be a reason the regime allegedly opted for chemical weapons in Idlib, analysts say.
"Assad doesn't have anywhere close to the men to retake his territory, that's why he's using chemical weapons," says Andrew Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "This [US strike] is a clear message he will not be able to gas his way over the two-thirds of Syrian territory outside his control."
Some analysts suspect that despite the posturing from the Kremlin, Russian President Vladimir Putin believed Assad deserved some kind of punishment for the gratuitous use of chemical weapons against civilians - as well as his lack of cooperation in a Russian-led effort to negotiate a peace deal between the regime and the opposition.
"I suspect that the Russians are furious with their ne'er-do-well client," says Frederic Hof, Director of the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East and a former State Department point man on Syria under President Barack Obama. "Why in the world would you use chemicals when everything is going your way?"
It remains to be seen whether the missile strike against the air base is a one-off response to the use of nerve agents or whether the Trump administration will repeat such operations anytime Syrian government forces inflict mass civilian casualties, whether with chemical weapons or conventional means.
Military action "would not likely reverse the tide of the conflict against Assad," says Hof. "But it could be significant enough to teach Assad that mass civilian casualty events will no longer be cost-free. This would be important, because as long as civilians are on the bullseye, there can be no meaningful or productive peace negotiations."
The Christian Science Monitor
iPhone | iPad
Android
Huawei
