The U.S. strikes on Syrian chemical weapons facilities have delivered the Assad regime a strong message but a very narrow one. Assad can continue to attack the Syrian people with conventional weapons without fear for the end of his rule. The U.S. military leaders have reaffirmed their long-standing focus on Daesh, thereby clarifying under what specific circumstances the regime would face punitive measures. It has been abundantly clear now that the U.S. would not apply military force to tilt the balance in the Syrian Civil War and these strikes just confirmed that policy once again. Strikes come at a time when the Trump administration has been giving mixed signals about its intentions in Syria.

The military attacks have come in the wake of President Trump’s remarks about getting out of Syria very soon. Many have questioned the wisdom of getting out too soon and leaving the playing field to Russia and Iran. The U.S. military leaders were some of the most immediate opponents of an “immature” military pullout of Syria. The military strikes on the Assad regime seem to ensure that the U.S. will stay in Syria for the foreseeable future. Yet, we need to remember that the precise message of the strikes is not about U.S. presence in Syria but about the use of chemical weapons. The U.S. does not have to be militarily present in Syria to punish the Assad regime thanks to its missile capabilities that we have seen in the attacks over the weekend.

U.S. military leaders have referred to Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution asserting the President’s, as the Commander in Chief, authority to use force for vital national interests. Defining the deterrence and proliferation of chemical weapons as a vital U.S. national interest has an implication that the U.S. will have to enforce this red line in all future violations. This justification steers clear of the war powers debate that has been taking place in some circles, although Congress does not seem to be interested in pushing the President to obtain a new resolution for war in Syria.

The assertion of inherent presidential authority to conduct strikes while relying on the 2001 AUMF in the fight against Daesh seems to emanate from multiple goals defined as national interests by the U.S. leadership. These goals are not always compatible and require different and at times conflicting strategies. While the President seems to think the fight against Daesh is largely completed and that it is time for a pullout, the U.S. response to the use of chemical weapons promises a long-term commitment to the enforcement of the red line. The debate ahead will likely revolve around the lack of an overarching Syria policy that reconciles these tendencies and clarifies the main goal.

The lack (some would argue ambiguity) of a coherent Syria policy has direct consequences for the course of the civil war. The narrow focus on Daesh is combined with a narrow focus on the use of chemical weapons (arguably sarin but not chlorine), which clarifies two priorities but do not add up to a broad policy. This sends the message to the regime that it can survive if it plays by the rules. The tough rhetoric against Iran and Russia does not add up to a broader message about the Syrian Civil War’s endgame. It only tells them that they can continue to support the regime as long as they do not interfere with specific U.S. priorities. President Trump has also given the message that he wants a U.S. pullout of Syria. Multiple priorities and conflicting rhetoric as such promise the continuation of an incoherent U.S. policy in the Middle East. The strikes were precise but they do not deliver a comprehensive Syria policy.

The suburb of Douma near Damascus witnessed a brutal chemical attack on April 7^th.  Seventy-eight people lost their lives due to the attack and the number of the wounded exceeds 100. The blood samples suggest that chlorine gas and an unnamed nerve agent were used in the attack. The signs also indicate the Assad regime for the perpetrated attack, as his regime has a long record of using chemical weapons indiscriminately against the rebels and civilians in rebel-held towns. Further, for actors other than Assad, using chemical weapons in the outskirts of Damascus is not an easy thing to do and using it against Assad’s enemies is not a smart thing to do.

Syria has long been a bloodbath in the midst of chemical attacks, heavy bombardments of civilians in Aleppo, Eastern Ghouta, Raqqa, and so on. As the death toll in the Syrian Civil War has passed half a million, the world seems to have gotten used to the pain and despair in Syria. Thousands of civilians dying under heavy shelling has become the new routine of Syria. Deaths under bombs do not even make headlines anymore, just like in its sidekick Yemen. Life in Syria, as in Yemen, in normal conditions is nasty, brutish, and short.

When you ask school kids to name some organic chemicals, you hear fructose or glucose, which tend to be the first world problems in the “normal” world. Yet, the answer to the same question might well be nerve agents or chlorine in Syria. While the world got used to seeing blood and tears in Syria, nerve agents that kill Syrians still make the world nervous. There is one thing that might still poke the world’s attention to the despair of Syrians and Assad seems to have been doing that one thing: using chemical weapons. U.S. President Trump does not have a good record of respecting civilian lives either as we saw in the U.S.-backed PYD offensives in Syria. But I guess what counts as crossing the red line is not how many civilians are killed but how. More, chemical weapons are the answer that the U.S. does not like to hear. Trump, in response to the Douma attack, tweeted full rage calling Assad an animal and promised to make him pay a big price.

 

Nevertheless, as days passed after the Douma attack, mixed signals came from the US. Would the US hit Assad? Analysts found it highly likely. When would the attack take place? According to the signals coming from the DC, Paris and London, it would be sooner than later. Would it be enough to topple down the Assad from power? That was the big question. And now we know the answer is no. The strikes did not aim to end the Assad’s brutal regime but just to deter another instance of chemical attack.

In an earlier occasion of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun, the U.S. had launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Mediterranean Sea and hit the Shayrat Airbase around this time last year. Yet, hitting regime-held military bases in such a limited way has proven to be ineffective. It cost Assad some soldiers and some weaponry and equipment, but Assad did not have shortage of replacements with the ongoing Iranian and Russian support. Hence, the earlier strikes last year this time did not prevent Assad from committing brutality again and the most recent one on Friday night will not. As a response to the U.S.-led alliance strikes, we might see one change in the way Assad commits brutal acts. April 2018 strikes were stronger than the U.S. strikes in April 2017. The message for Assad is that the volume will increase even more if he uses chemical attacks once again. However, the very same message tells Assad that he is quite secure if he is satisfied with killing his own citizens with weapons other than chemical weapons.

Last week, the rebel-held Douma city in Syria experienced apparent chemical weapon attacks. There is no doubt that the use of chemical weapons is consistent with the past behaviors of the Syrian regime. This development was not the first in Syria’s history. Since 2013, there have been dozens of chemical attacks carried out by the Syrian government itself. The regime has repeatedly employed chemical weapons towards the areas under opposition control, as documented by international bodies such as the United Nations and other nonpartisan international organizations. Chemical attacks fit within the broader policies of the Syrian regime and were used against civilians in the past. Particularly during the Syrian uprising, chemical attacks were used as part of a broader strategy of the regime in rebel-held areas. Leaving Assad’s chemical brutality against civilian targets aside, what made the attacks possible, among other things, is more important than the chemical attacks themselves. First and foremost, it was the lack of sufficient legal, diplomatic and military deterrence displayed by the international society.

For instance, following the Syrian regime chemical attack against the civilians in Khan Sheikhoun in August 2017, the U.S. launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles, which were limited to a Syrian base in Homs. Trump’s tactic of military engagement into the Syrian crisis after the chemical attack was part of the U.S.’ global “face-saving” strategy. Actually, the use of chemical weapons was not against Syrian civilians per se, but it was an attempt that undermined the normative nature of the universal values of humanity, which are perceived as an integral part of the western-centric liberal international order. Therefore, with a very limited and single target selection strike, Trump’s first intervention caused no concentrate loss for the Syrian regime. Trump’s first intervention against the Syrian regime also lacked a follow-up strategy to ensure lasting damage.

This time, the reaction of western powers was the same. The use of chemical weapons against civilians was not treated because many civilians were killed by the Syrian regime; rather it was framed as an integral part of the Assad’s “animalism” as expressed in a tweet shared by Trump. The Syrian regime’s use of barrel bombs since the beginning of the Syrian crisis has never been associated with this kind of concept, even though using barrel bombs is also against international humanitarian law. Now the U.S. and the countries which support a strong and joint reaction against the Syrian regime worry about the overall “Syrian strategy.” However, the situation appears very different in Syria in the eyes of the Trump administration, and this time, the president seems to change his policy in general. This is interesting since the president announced the U.S. military withdrawal from Syria last week.

There are two broader objectives of the U.S. in Syria when it comes to expected military interventions. Firstly, the Trump administration wants to effectively deter the use of all chemical weapons in Syria held by the regime. Secondly, without any doubt, the U.S. security establishment seeks to push back on the Russian/Iranian influence in Syria. This objective became a priority following the Russian involvement in the Skripal spy game in the U.K., and the increasing criticism against Putin in the U.S., as well. Trump himself is now against Putin as following the chemical attack he tweeted: “Get ready, Russia, because they (missiles) will be coming.”

To achieve these two broader objectives, the nature of military strikes in eliminating the Syrian regime’s chemical weapon capacity and the Russian/Iranian influence in the country should be evaluated critically. Even though Trump has no coherent strategy in Syria, the type of military intervention may change something on the ground. If Trump chooses the “purely punitive strikes” method to make the international community feel better about the retaliation against the brutality of the Syrian regime, then this will be the recurrence of the last missile strike that caused no considerable strategic costs for Assad. If Trump chooses the “minimum strike” option by targeting more than one place including aircraft bases, ammunition stores and command centers of the regime, then the price will be quite high for Assad, and probably for Russia, as well. However, this option also reserves some risks and opportunities for the U.S.

It is risky because a direct military confrontation with Russia is of high probability. It is an opportunity for the U.S. because the Syrian regime would feel more insecure and lose a good percentage of military capacity. If the president chooses the “extended strike” method this will serve the broader purpose of undermining the regime’s military capabilities. This type of military intervention needs to take the duration variable into consideration, which means that the strikes would continue for more than one day. This option may provide more opportunities for the rebel groups in Syria while generating costs for the Syrian regime. However, the collapse of the Syrian government may also bring more chaos to the entire country at this stage. The second risk of a direct military confrontation with Russia is also valid for this option.

If the objectives of the proposed action cannot be linked to a coherent strategy, Trump’s new Syrian game will not be effective in deterring the Syrian regime’s brutality and in undermining its military capacity. Therefore, it is possible to argue that military action far from the “reality” of the geopolitics of the Syrian crisis would not otherwise matter.

Assad is at it again. His regime used chemical weapons against civilians in Eastern Ghouta, which has been under attack for weeks. It was about a year ago that Assad used chemical weapons to which President Trump responded with a limited military strike. It was more of a show of force than a shift in policy. Since then, the Trump administration largely continued the Obama administration’s policy in Syria. The administration has continued to focus exclusively on Daesh at the expense of changing the equation in the broader civil war.

The most recent Trump announcement to withdraw from Syria “very soon” appears to have more to do with the domestic public opinion than with creating a new Syria policy. The latest attack in Eastern Ghouta may trigger a military response but it will likely remain limited again and keep the Assad regime in place without creating a new Syria policy. As both Obama and Trump said it in their own way, Syria is ultimately “someone else’s problem” for the U.S. Nor is the American public interested in getting involved in Syria any more than they have already. Ahead of the November midterm elections, President Trump might be interested in another show of strength by punishing Assad without deeper involvement in Syria. And Assad knows this.

The Syrian Civil War is entering its eighth year and the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on multiple occasions without serious consequences. It has gotten away with murder with the backing of Russia and Iran. Yet, the U.S. preferred to play the blame game during the Obama administration. Despite the limited military strikes of last year, the Trump administration is displaying a familiar pattern of blaming Russia and Iran but refusing to provide international leadership to bring an end to the conflict. Taking a lead in Syria would require a lot of political and diplomatic investment in a war which the administration considers someone else’s problem. Russia and Iran are too deeply involved to give up now while the U.S., alongside Europe are unwilling to play a big role. Assad is acutely aware of the failures of the international community.

Both President Trump’s harsh rhetoric (his first direct criticism of the Russian President Putin for supporting Assad) and the French President Macron’s red line statement make it likely that there will be a military response. In fact, the readout of a phone call on Sunday between Trump and Macron mentioned an agreement to “coordinate a strong joint response.” Both leaders can show the Assad regime that they will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons but it has become largely irrelevant for Assad as long as the military response remains limited, narrowly designed not to upset the balance of power on the ground. There is no serious indication that it will be different this time around.

One of the central dilemmas since the beginning of the Syrian civil war has been that the Assad regime has been able to use international indecision and disagreements to its advantage. In its weakest moments, the regime benefited from Russian and Iranian support even at the expense of Syria sovereignty. Facilitating the growth of terror groups at the expense of legitimate opposition, the Assad regime has also helped to turn the attention away from itself. All of this was not out of the regime’s genius but due to its repeated attempts at testing the limits of the Western responses towards the atrocities. The international community has reassured Assad that he may be punished for it but using chemical weapons will not spell the end of his regime. There are no signs it will be different this time around.

The Assad regime late Wednesday attacked residential areas in Syria’s Eastern Ghouta district with chlorine gas, Syrian Civil Defense said.

The attack came late at night in Eastern Ghouta’s village of Hammuriyah, the civil defense group, known as the White Helmets, said on its social media account.

The posting said that many women and children were affected by the gas but that their number and condition are not yet clear, since intense attacks by the regime and its supporters are ongoing and the roads are closed.

On March 12, the Assad regime cut Eastern Ghouta into three distinct parts, to capture southern Hammuriyah, where it also conducted attacks, including poison gas attacks, on civilian areas.

Despite a UN Security Council cease-fire resolution, on March 3 the regime and its allies began a major ground operation — backed by Russian air power — aimed at decisively capturing Eastern Ghouta, an opposition-held suburb of Damascus.

On Feb. 24, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2401, which calls for a month-long cease-fire in Syria — especially Eastern Ghouta — to allow the delivery of humanitarian aid.

Three days later, Russia announced its own cease-fire initiative, calling for daily, five-hour “humanitarian pauses” in the opposition-held district.

Home to some 400,000 people, Eastern Ghouta has remained the target of a crippling regime siege for the last five years.

The regime has stepped up its siege in recent months, preventing the delivery of badly needed humanitarian aid and leaving thousands of residents in need of medical treatment.

Last week, a UN inquiry commission released a report accusing the Assad regime of committing war crimes in Eastern Ghouta, including the use of chemical weapons on civilians, causing mass starvation, and forcibly preventing medical evacuations.

Source: AA

Russia cast its tenth veto on Syria in the U.N. Security Council on Thursday. This veto prevents the renewal of the mandate for a mission that investigates the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

The mandate of Joint Investigation Mechanisms (JIM)- an investigation by the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) – unanimously created by the 15-member U.N. Security Council in 2015 and renewed for another year in 2016 is due to expire on Friday.

At the end of October, the UN mechanism decided that forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were responsible for a chemical attack on April 4 in northwestern Syria.

The resolution prepared by the US needed nine votes in favor and no vetoes by the UN Security Council permanent members – United States, France, Russia, Britain or China – in order to be adopted.

The US draft text received 11 votes in favor, while Russia and Bolivia voted against and China and Egypt abstained.

The permanent representatives of the United States and Russia mutually accused each other. The US Permanent Representative to the UN, Nikki Haley, accused Russia of “killing the UN mechanism” by vetoing a draft that obtained the vote of 11 members in the council.

“By eliminating our ability to identify the attackers, Russia has undermined our ability to deter future attacks,” Nikki Haley, US envoy to the UN said in a statement. “The message to anyone listening is clear: in effect, Russia accepts the use of chemical weapons in Syria.”

Russia’s UN ambassador, Vasily Nebenzia, claimed that the US draft was unbalanced and unrealistic.

“We need a robust, professional mechanism that will help to prevent the proliferation of the threat of chemical terrorism in the region and you need a puppet-like structure to manipulate public opinion,” Nebenzia said.

Russia backs Assad in the world body, also granting him military support with an extensive air campaign and ground forces in Syria.

Although Russia had agreed to the creation of the JIM, it has consistently questioned its conclusions, which also stated that the Syrian government used chlorine as a weapon several on several occasions.

The Syrian government had agreed in 2013 to destroy its chemical weapons in hand after an agreement mediated by Russia and the United States. The UN confirmed that chemical weapons were destroyed.

*This report was written by Suna Nur Sarıhan. 

Chemical weapons have been used 45 times in Syria since last year, according to the Director General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which monitors the elimination of the toxic arms in order to ensure international security. The most recent chemical attack to draw world attention took place on April 4, 2017 in Khan Sheikhoun district, which is located in southern Idlib. The Khan Sheikhoun attack also prompted the fledgling Trump administration to carry out a cruise missile strike on a Syrian airbase allegedly used for the chemical attack, which targeted innocent civilians and children.

The Red Line in US Syria Policy

In response to the use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians, the root causes of the Trump authorization of a missile attack in Syria have been widely discussed at the international level. Trump’s missile strike could be interpreted as taking a stand against the use chemical weapons, which had been clearly marked as a ‘red line’ in Washington’s Syria policy by the previous administration. Back in 2013, President Obama had said any violation of the red line could lead to a possible change of US policy towards the Syrian civil war.

Apparently, Trump and his predecessor Obama are on the same page about what a red line in the Syrian civil war is. According to US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the top leadership of the Assad regime ordered the Khan Sheikhoun attack and decided to employ deadly chemicals including sarin gas to hit innocent people. Nevertheless, Syria and Russia are adamant that the recent sarin gas attack is a ‘false flag’ operation that Al-Qaeda or one of the Al-Qaeda-linked terrorist groups that controls the Idlib province set off in order to elicit an American intervention which put 20% of Assad’s air force out of action. However, if we take a look at the recent history of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, despite international condemnation, significant non-overlapping arguments were laid out by the Syrian government and even by the OPCW.

Even though Syria signed the Chemical Weapons Convention in October 2013 and OPCW reported Syria had removed all of its chemical arsenal in June 2014, the Syrian government went on to carry out chlorine gas attacks several times in Idlib. It is possible that Syria has used the Chemical Weapons Convention as a screen, so it can attribute future deadly chemical attacks on opposition groups fighting in Idlib.

Most probably, the Syrian government did not expect a sudden US attack that  would destroy one of their significant airfields. From now on, there is a possibility that Trump’s retaliatory attacks might stop Assad from using chemical weapons. Apparently Russia can quickly replace the lost aircraft at the destroyed airbase, so it is difficult to anticipate the future of Syria and how the recent US attacks might change the balance of power on the battlefield, specifically in Idlib province where the next “mother of all battles” is yet to come.

Trump’s Policy in the Middle East Will Not Be a Huge Departure from That of Obama’s

Following the chemical attack, the international community has renewed calls for supporting regime change and removing Assad from Syria, arguing that if this does not happen, Syria will stay vulnerable to further gross human rights violations. Even though the US has followed a pro-active policy in the region over the last 15 years, this time it seems that Trump’s policy in the Middle East would be “reactive.” So far, Trump’s policy has not offered any concrete solution to stop the humanitarian crisis except offering condemnation and carrying out some warning attacks. Most probably, Trump’s policy in the Middle East will not be a huge departure from that of Obama’s.

Trump’s reaction to the deadly chemical attack is rather symbolic and discursive, and does not change his stated aim that his top priority in Syria is to defeat DAESH. Syria urgently needs two rational solutions for two rising concerns which threaten the collective security of the region. One of them is to curtail the presence of terror organizations such as DAESH and PYD in the region. The other is to stop chemical attacks targeting civilian-inhabited areas and causing mass casualties. In this regard, Turkey could possibly get a leading role and step up for a pro-active policy in the region, especially after its Euphrates Shield Operation in Syria has been shown to be so successful.

Turkey Was Right to Consistently Call for Assad’s Ouster

After wide-spread chemical attacks in Syrian territory, the international community has been able to find the lowest common denominator and chanted “Assad must go” with one voice, however Turkey has known of the urgency of Assad’s ouster since the beginning of the war. After the chemical attack Turkey has renewed this call one more time.

The state apparatus in Syria has completely been destroyed and the legitimacy of the regime is highly questionable. More than 11 million people have been displaced (almost half of Syria’s population) and the economy has shrunk 65% since the start of the war. This is in addition to the situation even before the conflict began, when many Syrians were complaining about high unemployment rates, widespread and normalized corruption, and a lack of political freedoms.

Who Will Take the Lead in the Syrian Battleground?

The current situation in Syria is pathetic, as another deadly chemical attack was launched against innocent civilians, but no single institution or government seems sure of what the next step will be, and who is going to take the leading role. Moreover, there are communication problems between Moscow and the US, whose priorities are clashing against each other, with one side working for the “survival of the regime” and another for “fighting DAESH.” No one knows how Russia will take the facts of the recent chemical attack in discussions with their US counterparts, so the level of dialogue is very critical between the two powers and will determine the future of Syria under the Trump administration.

After a meeting with Putin on May 3, Erdoğan will meet with Trump on May 16. That meeting will turn out to be critical, as it will be the first “face to face” encounter between the two leaders. Additionally, two key NATO allies will have the chance to mend a relationship that was wounded by persistent US cooperation with PYD, the Syrian branch of the PKK.

Turkey should be neither too pessimist nor too optimist especially after Rex Tillerson’s statements on Syria, which were recently laid out after a joint press conference with Russian counter-part Lavrov. Tillerson underlined the urgency of Assad’s departure, however he added that the US is not going to lead it. His statement is a good summary of the American position, in that it is standing up for Syria.  The next step should be to realize that Turkey has a clear strategic advantage and can become that leading figure on the Syrian battleground needed to remove Assad.