Chris Doyle

By : Chris Doyle

:: Engaging the administration of US President Donald Trump as an ally, let alone an adversary, has proved challenging. Major question marks hang over his future policy to the UN, the EU, NATO, Russia and China, where he has taken mixed messaging to a new art form. To this list must now be added Syria.

The one consistent in Trump’s Syria approach has been to view it almost solely through a military lens. Until the April 7 attack, this was to hit Daesh harder than Barack Obama had done, including by deploying additional US forces. Not a word had been uttered about Syrian regime attacks on civilians, barrel bombs or mass detentions. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson affirmed on March 30 what everyone had guessed: The US was no longer seeking regime-change in Syria.

Has all of this changed after the chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhun? Has Trump, in the space of a few days, moved from isolationist to interventionist? Traditional US allies across Europe and the Middle East have backed his bombardment, but have no idea what Syria policy he is trying to sell.

Many European politicians felt this went a small way to correct what they saw as a failure to punish the Syrian regime after chemical weapons attacks in 2013. Some were also relieved that the US attack was so limited. Opposition to the strikes came from the hard left, including Britain’s Labour Party, or the extreme right, erstwhile Trump supporters who had welcomed his non-interventionist campaign rhetoric.

Yet unlike the US, many powers maintain a tough anti-Russia stance, no doubt the rationale for the British foreign secretary canceling his Moscow visit, something his American counterpart does not appear to be doing.

Many argue this was a distraction from Trump’s domestic afflictions. He would not be the first US president to be accused of this. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 reportedly to divert attention from an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Being seen to act against a Russian ally might also serve to squash the serious allegations that Trump is in debt to President Vladimir Putin. Trump will have appreciated the angry reaction from Moscow.

He has also made a great play about being everything his predecessor was not. Obama failed to bomb Syria in 2013; Trump has done the job in 2017, even if he opposed any attack in 2013 in 13 tweets. Obama vacillated, Trump was decisive. Trump declared a line had been crossed and proclaimed he meant business.

He still has no overt Syria strategy, and lobbing 59 cruise missiles into an airbase is no platform for one. Does he even want one beyond smashing Daesh? A man who banned all Syrians from entering the US and suspended accepting refugees does not care about the lives of Syrians.

Chris Doyle

Obama declared in August 2011 that Syrian President Bashar Assad had to stand aside. Trump has not, and while Tillerson implied that this had to happen, White House spokesman Sean Spicer refused to confirm this.

European politicians think differently. The French foreign minister proclaimed even before the chemical weapons strikes: “France does not believe for an instant that this new Syria can be led by Assad.” Of course, France will shoulder none of the responsibility in achieving this.

Syrian opposition groups have rejoiced, somewhat prematurely. They would be wise not to start mortgaging their future on Abu Ivanka, who shows no sign of buying into their cause. Trump has yet to meet with any Syrians, opposition or regime.

He still has no overt Syria strategy, and lobbing 59 cruise missiles into an airbase is no platform for one. Does he even want one beyond smashing Daesh? A man who banned all Syrians from entering the US and suspended accepting refugees does not care about the lives of Syrians. He seems to care just as little about finding a political solution to this crisis.

A strong argument can be made that Trump’s fireworks display is a distraction of an entirely different sort. Notably, there was minimal damage at Shayrat airbase, which was operational within 24 hours, with planes back to bombing Syrian civilians with no reaction from Washington. Russia has, despite the rhetoric, done remarkably little in the wake of the attacks. The reality is that this was no major strike and barely damaged the Syrian regime.

In some ways, Trump has strengthened Russia’s hand as well as his own. The Syrian regime can no longer be sure what the US will do, and may have to listen more carefully to its protector-in-chief in Moscow.

The price for keeping the US out of the fray may well be for the regime to acquiesce in the sort of changes it has blocked at every turn. Russia may let the US get its way in east Syria with Daesh and the Kurds, in exchange for no interference in its key role in the west.

Trump has bombed his way to some positive headlines and goodwill. His action serves notice to the Syrian regime that chemical weapons use will lead to consequences. Other states, not least North Korea and Iran, have been put on notice. It was a calculated escalation that carried many rewards for a beleaguered US president, but left Syrians little closer to the end of the conflict that has destroyed their country.

Chris Doyle is the director of the London-based Council for Arab-British Understanding (CAABU). He has worked with the council since 1993 after graduating with a first class honors degree in Arabic and Islamic studies at Exeter University. He has organized and accompanied numerous British parliamentary delegations to Arab countries. He tweets @Doylech.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in the Column section are their own and do not reflect RiyadhVision’s point-of-view.