Implications of US strikes on Syria

“What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long-term conflict? Obama needs congressional approval,” said Donald Trump in 2013. He even called Obama “desperate” in launching a strike against Libya or Iran, and suggested that “the president must get congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not.” Calling out for Obama not to attack Syria, he ordered the launching of cruise missiles on the Syrian government’s al Shayrat airfield in contrast to what he opposed a few years back.

Britain, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Australia and various Gulf states were swift to hail the US missile attacks on Syria while Russia, Iran and China opposed the strikes. Russia, the strongest ally of Syria, has criticised US attacks for being aggressive measures against a sovereign state under a false pretext and labelled these a violation of international law. Russia has not only warned of “extremely serious” consequences, but pointed out that the “deconfliction hotline” (established earlier to avoid accidental clashing of jets of both nuclear powers in Syrian skies while attacking the terrorists’ positions) between the US and Russia could also be in jeopardy. Furthermore, in an angry response to Trump’s order Russia has sent a warship equipped with cruise missiles to its naval base at the Syrian port city of Tartus.

Thus, the attack has brought Russia and the US at loggerheads. Syria has categorically denied its involvement in chemical attacks. Washington also failed to provide evidence about which side in the conflict used chemical weapons. In the absence of such proof, Trump’s order can further add complexity and escalate tensions in an already prolonged civil war. Though the strikes have dwindled hopes for American-Russian rapprochement, the Russians were reportedly informed by the US and they evacuated prior to the attacks. Also, Syrian jets reportedly resumed flights from the runway of al-Shayrat airfield.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is scheduled to visit Moscow and is expected to reach an understanding with the Russians on Syria in the wake of the risk of a clash between both countries. However, these attacks have strengthened the previously already weak US position in Syria. Since the entry of Russia into Syrian civil war in 2015, the war scenario has changed. The tide has turned in favour of the Syrian government as its forces are now successfully reclaiming the Syrian territories back from the terrorists. Fyodor Lukyanov, a foreign policy analyst in Moscow, said that “for Trump, discussion with Russia about cooperation in Syria was impossible before because it was a discussion from a position of weakness. Now we can say that America has shown its abilities, has returned to the picture, and the conversation won’t be one-sided, neither side will dominate, and this creates possibilities and preconditions for dialogue.”

The domestic front for Trump however doesn’t seem littered with roses. The similar congressional vote, he asked in 2013, has brought him criticism from some of his own Republican Party’s leaders.

The debate on the legality of his order to strike Syria has gained momentum. Whether such order is constitutional or not has not only gripped politicians in the US, but also puzzled legal and constitutional experts. Trump now has to fight his battle on two fronts. A viable and wise foreign policy on Syria to end the conflict should be the primary task of Trump administration, yet, so far it is missing. Trump, a harsh critic of the Obama administration, and a long advocate of no external intervention — at least previously — will also have to see if he has committed that “big mistake” by not asking for congressional approval before attacking Syria.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 12^th, 2017.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.