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.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry