Friday’s US air strike on a Syrian government air base marked the first time Washington has decided to take military action against the Damascus regime since the civil war started in 2011. The big question is whether it will be the last.
The second question, related to the first, is what impact it will have on Bashar Al-Assad.
In explaining that it was in the “vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons,” US President Donald Trump ordered the firing of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from two US Navy ships in the Mediterranean on the Shayrat airfield where US officials say the Syrian military launched a deadly chemical attack earlier this week which killed over 80 people.
The speed of the US attack, which lasted just a few minutes and which killed six people, was matched by how fast US policy had changed; literally overnight. Trump had been adamant that the focus of the US should be on defeating Daesh (the self-proclaimed IS) rather than ousting Bashar Al-Assad. There would be no nation building for this isolationist president. Just one week ago, Trump and his team were more or less declaring that Al-Assad would probably be staying.
So much for stated policy. In ordering the missile strikes, Trump has markedly deviated from the point he had been making since the start of his presidential campaign, that “America first” means not getting embroiled in wars thousands of miles away from US shores.
So is this a policy of flexibility or incoherency? Because of this lightning shift, it is highly improbable that Trump and his aides have had the time to really understand its ramifications. Syria is an extremely complicated conflict. Dozens and dozens of political and military forces have aligned with and against each other. At times, the US is working with some; in places other than Syria, Washington is in direct opposition with those same supposed allies.
In launching airstrikes against the Al-Assad regime, Trump could be committing the US to a new military conflict whose scope and scale are unknown. The question remains whether this is a one-off act or the start of something bigger? Nor do we know where it leaves US relations with one of Syria’s strongest allies, Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin described the US airstrikes as “an act of aggression against a sovereign state” that “dealt a serious blow to Russia-US relations” which will be fully tested when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson meets his Russian counterpart in a few days.
Even if this turns out to be the only military move Trump makes against Al-Assad, in less than three months as president, he has taken a markedly different path from that of his predecessor Barack Obama who would not take military action against Al-Assad over chemical weapons attacks.
Trump was seemingly moved by what he and the world saw: the images of dead and dying Syrians, including “beautiful babies”, in Trump’s words, following the chemical weapons attack.
This US strike may distract people from dwelling on Trump’s muddled start to his presidency, and it will probably elevate his status, from that of tweeter to war president.
To be sure, the strike is not a game changer. It was a limited strike that will likely have only a limited effect. It will not hasten an end to the Al-Assad regime. Al-Assad has many airfields at his disposal. But it may at least deter his further use of chemical weapons and it makes clear that punishment will follow if he uses them.
