While an official decision to initiate military action has not been taken yet, an administration official told CNN that the US military could respond promptly if Syria were to launch a chemical attack.
US officials are worried about an impending Syrian government assault which could involve the use of chemical attacks, on the terrorist stronghold of Idlib.
US officials also claim that an assault on the city could lead to many casualties and deepen the humanitarian crisis along the Turk-Syrian border.
The Pentagon is also closely keeping a close eye on the Russian military exercises in the eastern Mediterranean.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday accused his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov of "defending the assault" by Syrian government forces on the last rebel stronghold in Idlib province.
"Sergey Lavrov is defending Syrian and Russian assault on #Idlib," Pompeo tweeted. "The Russians and Assad agreed not to permit this.
The US sees this as an escalation of an already dangerous conflict."
He added: "The 3 million Syrians, who have already been forced out of their homes and are now in #Idlib, will suffer from this aggression. Not good. The world is watching."
Pakistan weighs down imminent Syria air strikes
Sergey Lavrov is defending Syrian and Russian assault on #Idlib. The Russians and Assad agreed not to permit this. The U.S sees this as an escalation of an already dangerous conflict.
— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) August 31, 2018
In pictures: Western airstrikes on Syria
Turkey, Russia and fellow regime backer Iran all operate "observation points" in Idlib as part of a "de-escalation" deal agreed last year that was meant to reduce bloodshed in the province.
The prospect of a massive Russian-backed offensive in a province that is home to some three million people -- half of them already displaced from other parts of Syria -- has raised fears of a new humanitarian tragedy.
This story originally appeared in CNN
COMMENTS (1)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ