AUS cruise missile attack on a Syrian air base might persuade Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to be more cautious with some of his tactics, but will not deter him and his allies from pressing a full-throttle military campaign to crush rebels.
It was the first time Washington has directly targeted al-Assad’s government in six years of civil war and has pushed the administration of US President Donald Trump into proclaiming that Washington still wants al-Assad removed from power.
However, the single volley of Tomahawk missiles was of such limited scope that it will reinforce the view held by Damascus and its allies that the US is no more eager than before to take the sort of strong action needed to defeat him.
Illustration: Mountain People
“[Al-]Assad now knows there is a red line with regard to the use of chemical weapons, but I think he also probably just sees it as a slap on the wrist,” said David Lesch, professor of Middle East history at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas, and an author on Syria.
“[Al-]Assad has to recalibrate, but not fundamentally change his military approach that they’ve been engaging in since the Russian intervention,” Lesch said. “I really believe they are not feeling too bad today, if this is the extent of what the US is going to do.”
Damascus denies carrying out the chemical attack that provoked the US response.
The attack in the town of Khan Sheikhoun in the rebel-held province of Idlib near the Turkish border killed at least 87 people, 31 of them children.
Al-Assad has responded with characteristic defiance, vowing to accelerate efforts to wipe out rebels he calls terrorists.
A joint command center representing his Russian, Iranian and Lebanese Hezbollah allies said the US attack would only cause them to redouble their support for the Syrian government.
Airstrikes have continued unabated since the US attack on Friday. Eighteen people were reportedly killed in one strike alone in Idlib on Saturday. Though damaged, the Shayrat air base near Homs is partly operational and flights have taken off.
The base was largely evacuated before the US strikes, after Washington forewarned Moscow, which in turn alerted the Syrian government, according to a senior military source in the alliance fighting in support of al-Assad.
Describing the US attack as a “limited strike” that was quickly over, another senior ally of al-Assad in the region said toppling him did not seem to be a priority for Trump.
“There is still no clear American policy on Syria,” the ally said.
Although the attack had shown Trump to be unpredictable, a third official in the pro-al-Assad alliance did not yet see a major shift in the US’ approach.
“Is this a strategic shift by the Americans? Do they want to get into a big problem with the Russians? I don’t think there is a strategic shift,” the official said.
Washington says it acted because Syrian aircraft bombed Khan Sheikhoun with sarin, a banned nerve agent that Damascus pledged to give up in 2013 after then-US president Barack Obama threatened to bomb as punishment for another alleged gas attack.
Moscow and Damascus say the deaths were the result of a Syrian airstrike on a depot where rebels were making chemical weapons that then leaked into the town — a claim rebels deny and Washington dismisses as beyond credibility.
The attack marked a departure from the approach of Obama, who ran a large-scale air campaign in Syria against fighters from the Islamic State group, but avoided direct entanglement in the parallel civil war to unseat al-Assad.
The Obama administration provided limited support for anti-al-Assad rebels, but never directly struck government targets after Obama called off such strikes four years ago, at a time when Trump also said attacking al-Assad would be a mistake.
Ahead of his election victory, Trump had attacked Obama’s approach in ways that appeared to suggest he would back off of calls to remove al-Assad.
He questioned the wisdom of backing rebels, suggested that Washington should work more closely with Russia to fight the Islamic State group, and noted that while he did not like him: “[Al-]Assad is killing ISIS,” using an acronym for the group.
The first two months of Trump’s presidency passed with little said about al-Assad’s government, while extra US troops arrived to help Kurdish and Arab militias in northern Syria fight against the Islamic State.
A few days ahead of the chemical attack, two top US officials made their clearest pronouncements yet on Syria, saying that Washington was not now focused on making al-Assad leave power and the focus was on defeating the Islamic State.
Some analysts believe the March 30 comments by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley emboldened al-Assad ahead of the Khan Sheikhoun attack.
“I think they were overconfident. I think they felt that they could certainly get away with it — if in fact [al-]Assad did order this — because Idlib is controlled by al-Qaeda affiliates and the Russians are striking there, and the US has also struck there,” Lesch said.
Since the attack, Trump has struck a tough tone, saying that “something should happen” with al-Assad, but not yet saying what that should be.
Haley has made an about-face on her previous remarks, saying on Saturday that al-Assad’s removal was a priority.
Tillerson seemed to take a more patient stance in regard to al-Assad, saying on Saturday that Washington’s first priority was the defeat of the Islamic State.
Tillerson has also said there was no role for al-Assad in Syria’s future.
The Syrian opposition, which long accused the Obama administration of inaction, wants the US attack to be the start of a more aggressive policy toward al-Assad.
Syrian rebel groups on Friday said that the US’ “responsibility” did not end with the missile attack.
“We are waiting for the American administration to reveal its complete vision for the Syrian file,” prominent Syrian opposition politician George Sabra siad.
Al-Assad, whose forces have been in a much stronger position since receiving military backing from Russia in 2015, continues to press his advantage in a war that has killed more than 400,000 people and driven half of Syrians from their homes.
Military pressure and siege tactics have forced rebels out of numerous strongholds in recent months, including eastern Aleppo and areas near Damascus.
The opposition says al-Assad is forcibly displacing his opponents to remote parts of Syria in deals that offer rebels safe passage out, calling it a policy of demographic change.
One such agreement moved ahead on Saturday as planned.
Syrian state TV said the Waer district of Homs city area would be declared “free of weapons” this month.
The evacuation is taking place in phases, with Russian oversight on the ground.
Several hundred more fighters left Waer on Saturday, which has been besieged for years, for northern Syria with their families. They are being taken by bus to rebel-held areas of northern Syria, accompanied by Russian forces.
A Russian general interviewed by Syrian state TV said that the US attack would not derail implementation of the deal.
Al-Assad, in an interview before the US attack, made clear that so-called local “reconciliation” agreements remain central to his strategy, along with military action.
Citing recent rebel attacks in Damascus and Hama, he said there could be no “results” with opposition groups at UN-backed peace talks.
There is no “option but victory,” he said.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing