|
On Thursday evening, US Tomahawk missiles struck Shayrat Airfield in Homs province, Syria, in response to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad brutal chemical weapons attack that killed 82 civilians including children and infants earlier this week. In his address last night to the nation, President Trump stated, “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons” and continued, “Tonight I call on all civilized nations in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types.”
AEI experts are available to comment on the President’s actions and the implications for US foreign relations in the region:
Thomas Donnelly:
Whatever the president’s motivation, there’s a good case to be made that, at least in regard to the Middle East, a coherent approach is emerging. This represents both a reversal from the Iran-first gambit of the Obama years and a reaffirmation of the traditional US strategy that held sway from Jimmy Carter in 1979 through George W. Bush in 2009. …
The Sharyat strikes were more than symbolic, or at least differently symbolic. Trump fired nearly 60 Tomahawks at the Syrians, whereas the raid on the 1998 Shifa pharmaceutical plant that was thought to house chemical weapons facilities was just 13 missiles. Where Bill Clinton was content with a “pinprick,” Trump shwacked the Syrians with a two-by-four.
Frederick W. Kagan:
President Trump’s decision to attack the airfield from which the most recent chemical attack was launched must be the start of a new strategy. It must begin a campaign to drive the Assad regime to compromise. It must be the start of an effort to regain the confidence of Sunni Arabs in Syria and around the world that the U.S. stands with them against all those who would attack them, ISIS and Al Qaeda as well as Iran and its proxies. …
The U.S. missile attack was designed to avoid causing Russian casualties, and America should continue to try to avoid direct conflict with Russia and with Iran. It showed, however, that the U.S. will not allow fear of such a conflict to force us to a policy of total passivity. A prudent strategy will continue to manage escalation while simultaneously opening new possibilities for American action in our own national security interests.
Danielle Pletka:
Many in Washington and around the country profess to know Donald Trump and his mind. And to be fair, his posture as candidate for president never once suggested that before 100 days were out, he would be launching TLAMs into Syria. If you had asked me yesterday, I would have said he was on track to favoring an Assad-led solution that met his goal of defeating ISIS, and nothing else.
But yesterday is no more. Can Trump explain to those supporters most outraged by his actions (including the fringe loonies who labeled the Sarin attack a “false flag operation”) why he did what he did? Do the vast mass of his supporters give a damn about what he chooses to do in Syria? Is he looking for a long-term solution to the ISIS and al Qaeda challenge in the Middle East? None of those questions has a clear answer.
Let us hope that in the days to come, the new president and his national security team will make clear that the Trump administration has a strategy to defeat our enemies and to renew the American people’s support for decisive US leadership that will keep us safe, begin to end terror’s scourge, start the resolution of the refugee problem and turn around the weakness of the last eight years. Let us hope.
Michael Rubin:
Does the U.S. strike put Washington and Moscow on a collision course in Syria? Not necessarily. Rather than exacerbate conflict, Trump’s unilateralism could actually catalyze cooperation. Both Trump and the Pentagon were careful. They targeted Ash Shar’irat for a simple reason: It was the base from which Syrian planes launched the Khan Sheikhoun attack. And while the speed of the strike and its unilateralism might have surprised Syrians, an administration official said that the Pentagon warned Russia about the imminence of the attack via a military hotline between commanders to avoid hitting Russian forces. …
As the smoke clears over Ash Sha’irat, the next step in the U.S.-Russian dance over Syria will be in the shadows as Washington and Moscow get down to business to determine if they can agree on a placeholder from Assad’s inner circle who can take over the reins of power while Assad exits to an inglorious Moscow or Tehran exile. That may have seemed improbably a week ago but sometimes the threat of military force opens new diplomatic deals.
To arrange an interview with an AEI expert, please contact AEI media services at mediaservices@aei.org or 202-862-5904.
|
