Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Defence and security / / Articles
The reaction of the Western analytical centers on the shelling of the US cruise missile base "Shirt" Syrian air force
Material posted: Publication date: 19-05-2017

On April 6, President Donald trump gave the order to launch a missile attack on Syrian airbase shirt in response to what is considered an attack with chemical weapons on Syrian rebels, which killed and injured over a hundred people, including children. In this situation it is necessary to review the reactions of the leading Western think tanks, which largely affect the policies of their countries. Analytical centres were selected depending on their significance, based on the report "2016 Global Go-To Think Tank Index Report", compiled by the Pennsylvania state University.

The Brookings Institution (Washington, USA)

First and foremost, you should consult to experts of one of leading analytical centers at the Brookings institution.

Most of the experts of the center from the very beginning of the conflict in Syria has taken a tough stance on the Syrian issue[1]. They approved the missile strikes, but expressed disappointment at the lack of further action from the administration trump. On the one hand, "missile attacks looks more like an attempt to stifle the pangs of conscience, not a serious change in our policy in Syria for the better," says senior researcher of the Center for middle East policy of the Brookings Daniel Byman. On the other, "missile attack displays significant changes in the policies of the new administration," he said[2].

When trump came to power, it seemed that he wanted to work with Russia in Syria against the Islamic state and implicitly acknowledged that Russia's ally – the Assad regime will remain in power. Just a few days ago the Secretary of state Rex Tillerson and representative to the UN, Nikki Haley, it seemed, signaled that the United States will no longer seek to separate Assad from power. In this meet all the experts of the Institute.

At the moment analysts of Brookings noted a positive change (return) in politics the new Washington administration. Because now, according to them, the administration trump will be no more "crouching" in front of one of the most "bloody dictators" in the world, supported by Iran. In addition, the policy States, "in Syria no longer koordiniruyutsya with Moscow, and it was good. Cooperation with Russia in the middle East has angered American allies. And the gap with Russia is likely to mean that Washington will resist Moscow in Europe and beyond"[3].

However, the turn in the direction of opposition to the Assad regime appears to be Daniel Buymenu hasty. After all, Washington is not acting udostovereno that the use of force corresponds to a political strategy and not determine it. A single blow with a Tomahawk will not contribute to the achievement of American goals in Syria without serious changes in the political line of the USA in Syria. It's no more than a political message, though "very serious, which showed to Assad that he cannot use chemical. weapons, and Russia has proved that the US does not fear to act"[4] says Michael O'hanlon, co-Director of the Center for security 21st century and Intelligence the Brookings institution.

In this uncertain situation, the centre's experts insist on:

  • the need for further reflection and action, through the political strategy of the United States to Syria, which only have to develop a new White House administration.
  • more serious US involvement in the Syrian conflict, primarily to fight ISIS because, in their opinion, Assad allowed terrorists in his country, following the example of bin Laden.

To solve the problem of terrorism in Syria, the experts propose to apply proven tactics of using a large number of drones to hunt terrorists. Against Bashar al-Assad, analysts suggest starting numerous bombing and military action on the ground, as aircraft are limited in their capabilities (including air defense systems deployed in Syria).

As the ground of military power Michael O'hanlon proposes to use "the most friendly to the United States military forces" in the Arab country. He also insists on the need to protect the autonomy of the regions of Syria inhabited mainly by Syrian Kurds and the Sunnis from the Assad regime, even if he will remain in power. Moreover, these enclaves according to him should be managed and protected separately[5].

Center dimension just say, "Assad must go, but while he will remain." Moreover, the departure of the leader of Syria should take place without military coercion on the part of States, because nobody will approve a military intervention of the United States, such as the invasion of Iraq. In order to avoid direct intervention, they suggested the following General plan:

  • Refuse to supply arms to the Kurds.
  • To post on the Syrian-Turkish border units of the armed forces of the United States and Turkey, as part of the future "peacekeeping force" that separates the autonomy of the Syrian and Turkish Kurds.
  • Divided Syrian Kurds on at least two of the autonomy in order to prevent the formation of an independent "Syrian Kurdistan"
  • To examine the options of persuasion of Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin to agree to such a partition of Syria (A recent American strikes on the airbase restored military authority of the United States).
  • To make it clear that donors to restore the SAR will be the United States, Europeans, Japanese and Koreans, the Gulf countries. The restoration of part of Syria controlled by the Assad regime, of course, the money these donors will only start after Bashar al-Assad will agree to the creation of the above Autonomous regions, and announced his resignation. Experts note that it may take some time, "Russia, Iran and Hezbollah there is no money to rebuild Syria,"[6].

In the end, analysts of Institute have come to the conclusion that the use of the trump cruise missiles was permissible and even useful, but now need to implement more complex tasks. The President shall approve the proposed or to develop a new strategy of the United States to Syria. And if the missile attacks are not accompanied by strategic policies and specific actions that can enhance long walks in American society impression about the incompetence of the new administration, and rumors about the President that makes decisions based on television news[7].

Missile strikes have returned to the US in a state of opposition to the current government of Syria and showed the willingness of the new American government to use force. That is what was missing from the Obama – said Nathan Sachs, expert of the Center for middle East policy Brookings institution.

At the moment, analysts said, trump is facing a difficult choice, because he has repeatedly promised not to depose him, he will focus all his attention on the fight against ISIS, and that "America first"[8]. Now D. trump "collided with reality". The situation is complicated by the fact that experts and even support the determination of trump, but I doubt the legality of his decision as it was made unilaterally, without any consultation and the approval of Congress.

Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs) (London, UK)

Next, you should contact the analysts of the Royal Institute of international relations – British research centre in the field of international relations, the second leading think tank in the world.

Analysts at the Institute have accused Assad's repeated violation of agreements on the nonuse of the chemical. weapons and the use of chlorine bombs, including against the civilian population. The experts referred to the conclusions of the UN Commission on the prohibition of chemical weapons, which found government forces are guilty in some cases, the use of bombs with chlorine in 2014 and 2015[9]. And attempts, through the UN security Council to "punish" the regime for violation of the agreements and refusal to use chemical. weapons failed British-French draft resolution, proposing to use economic and diplomatic sanctions against the regime, not even reached the Security Council, where Russia would use a veto.

On this basis, the experts of the Royal Institute supported the missile strike, and trump's decision not to follow proper procedures in the framework of the UN Security Council, given previous failures to push through a decision favorable to the West on Syria. Analysts have rejected criticism of the missile strikes on the grounds of illegality, based in international law.

Experts of the Institute noted: "American missile strikes will not bring the Syrian conflict to resolve in and of themselves represent a small success that could lead to further escalation of the conflict" [10]. But the beats gave me a message that using chemical weapons will not go unpunished. This puts the administration of the tramp in a more advantageous position than the Obama administration in 2013. The strikes, analysts estimate as limited and proportionate but sufficient to convince Assad not to use chemical munitions continue for some time. Though "the bombing of the airbase Shirt not affected the military power of the regime"[11] says Lina Khatib, head of programme for the Middle East and North Africa at Chatham house. The expert emphasizes the accuracy of the strike. He was struck after the United States warned Russia about him that has allowed the Syrian army to evacuate the airbase and minimize losses.

Intelligence center noted the fact that the missile strikes cannot be a substitute for the strategy which is lacking in the USA in the Syrian conflict in General. If evaluating the perfect shot in this broader context, he in any case does not mean a change in policy of the new administration towards the Assad regime, experts say. In their view, the danger now is that tensions between the U.S. and Russia could increase dramatically, but the US and its allies will confine myself to the aggressive rhetoric that is not supported by action. Such an outcome would turn a minor victory into a strategic setback. Because a similar situation had taken place a few years ago. The administration of the trump must now focus on developing political and military strategy of the United States to Syria, in order to achieve a settlement of the conflict, conclude the experts.

At the same time, despite the fact that "Donald trump called the chemical attack "an affront to humanity", the General line of American policy may remain unchanged"[12] says the expert of the Institute for Middle East Tim Eaton.

Those are mistaken who believes that the American missile attack on 6 April on the Syrian air base - the sign that:

  • American President Donald trump is going back to a more "moralistic and humanistic" foreign policy,
  • focusing on America's national interests as any of these change.

It is in any case does not mean that the United States is now involved in regime change and Assad is unlikely the situation will change in the near future. Mr. Eaton did not believe that the priorities of the administration of Donald trump, intending to bomb ISIS, dramatically shifted in the direction of helping the Syrian rebel groups to overthrow President Bashar. The lack of trust of Washington to the Syrian opposition forces and the fear of the growth of the influence of the Islamists and ISIS will encourage the current administration to retain the current policy of the fight against radicals.

"The bombings indicate several things," says Ksenia, Wicket, Dean of the Academy of Queen Elizabeth II at Chatham house.

  • Blow confirms the unpredictability of the foreign policy of the administration trump.
  • The US President will not issue his views.
  • It will not limit itself to previously made statements.
  • At any moment he might change his mind, and then again to return to the original position.
  • Trump would not hesitate to use force[13].

As a kind of strategy that would complement the missile attacks, specialists suggest the use of economic instruments: sanctions, trade and the restoration of the economy of the country. Their use can play a key role in determining the future of Syria. Foreign sponsors of the regime, Russia and Iran, do not have the capital to Fund large-scale reconstruction efforts, no interest in the reconstruction of Syria[14], experts say Chatham house. The Western powers – the US, EU, UK and France should use its limited influence to obtain concessions from the Assad regime and its international patrons.

In the case of the lack of coherent strategic vision or political will on the part of Western governments to fight against terrorism, experts are threatened by the increasing power and influence of extremist groups. Moreover, according to them, the decision must be not only military and political but also must be promoted at various levels, across Syria, and at the local level, including among the various communities.

Analysts also viewed the opportunity to play on the Russian-Iranian contradictions during political settlement, in order to make a transitional Syrian government more pliable to the demands of the US and its allies[15].

Center analysts say that although Russia has suspended cooperation agreement that would allow U.S. and Russian military aircraft did not cross into Syrian skies, and called the missile attack an "act of aggression", such retaliatory action from Moscow are presented to the experts is much less severe than some analysts had expected. "The fear was that any symbolic Western intervention would cause Russia to become more involved in the conflict, and not to seek his permission"[16]. Until that happens, the centre's experts offer the US President to act.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS (Washington, USA)

No less attention should be paid to the experts of the Center for Strategic and International Studies – one of the leading research institutes in the United States. According to the rating of analytical centers of the world in 2016 (Global Go-To Think Tanks Report), CSIS is ranked first in the world in the category "think tanks on defense and national security," and is 4th in ranking of all the world's leading think tanks.

First, analysts point out that Assad used poison gas many times to the notorious chemical attack. And chemical weapons might be a good "excuse to act against the dictator." The United States and the world community must do more to help the Syrians to fight extremism (meaning and "state terrorism"). The absence of American and international pressure on the Syrian regime has made many countries are actually supporters of Bashar al-Assad[17].

The decision of President Donald trump to strike at the military airfield means a significant expansion of the American involvement in the Syrian conflict. At the same time experts have noted the controversial legal framework (state legislation and international law), which was used by the US President, saying the bombing[18]. Also, it was not sanctioned by the U.S. Congress and the UN security Council. Experts compare this situation with the events of 2013, when Obama is entering US troops to Syria, decided to first obtain the approval of Congress.

Analysts do not exclude that Trump will not be able to obtain parliamentary approval to continue the military operation, if such it was intended. Therefore, the President has only 60 days (according to the Law on War Powers), to strike without the approval of Congress or try to get approval to continue military operations. This is important, because it is unclear whether the launches of Tomahawks part of an overall strategy or a single action. The cycle of violence will continue to contribute to the growth of terrorist groups[19] the Islamic state and al-Qaeda, despite U.S. counter-terrorism efforts.

The strokes are a Testament to that – analysts say that President Donald J. Trump listened to his advisers, flexible enough, decided a proportional call, and established effective cooperation with Russia to avoid escalation. The strikes also showed the mood of the President to act in spite of "Russian pressure" [20].

Experts believe the United States is too focused on the fight against ISIS and extremist non-state actors, while "state terrorism" of Bashar al-Assad gained momentum, which resulted in a result in the chemical attack on civilians. "The effects of chemical weapons have shown that state terrorism can be, actually, much worse," religious terrorism[21]. Analysts of the Research Center accused the leader of Syria in the murder of hundreds of thousands of people civilians for 5 years of war. The strike in response to the attacks of government forces using chemical weapons will not prevent Syria's use of other forms of state terrorism on the ground, including violations of the truces and agreements on the withdrawal of troops.

Options for the development of the situation in Syria after the launch of the Tomahawks CSIS experts see a lot. Specialists of the center offer a choice of the US authorities following steps in order to achieve the objectives of States in Syria:

  • Focus on working together with our Arab allies in the region – Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar to join the flow of arms and money to the rebels (the rebels) in the event of further escalation of the situation by Assad's attacks on civilians. In the extreme case, analysts propose to restore the requirement of the departure of the Syrian leader in the peace process.
  • To understand the ATS authorities that any future use of chemical weapons will lead to even more serious American strikes, including ground troops and air forces supporting Assad who violate the truce agreement about evacuation and attack clearly civilian targets.
  • To expand economic and financial sanctions[22].
  • The last option offered by the experts of the center, is almost completely copies the partition plan Syria for autonomy from the analysts of the Brookings institution. Proposed a "Marshall Plan" for Syria with a number of conditions, and direct work with local armed groups and local communities. Also, the experts of CSIS are saying about the futility of the return to the peace settlement with Russia.

The only limitation, which experts say – impact on the situation in Syria should not include major use of force, especially the use of American ground troops. Specialists motivate this decision by the "lack of Americans interest in permanent military interventions in the middle East, given the need for resources in the United States and competition for geo-strategic aims in Europe and Asia"[23]. In addition, the launch of cruise missiles could push Russia to limit the access of coalition aircraft to the Syrian sky. And it is unlikely that Washington is ready to increase pressure on Moscow. Experts agree that a military solution to the conflict, military means can only prepare the ground for negotiations.

John B. Alterman – First Vice-President and Director of the middle East program, CSIS, and even offers to "make it clear to Bashar al-Assad and his backers that the United States will not allow Damascus to win" that the choice between Assad and ISIS does not suit US. And this is despite "billions of dollars of humanitarian aid and hundreds of millions as a secret support of the rebels more than five years", which has already been spent in the shuffle in an attempt to create a "strategic leverage that would harm the interests of others when necessary" [24].

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Washington, USA)

The Carnegie endowment for international peace is a private, non-profit organization, whose main task officially is to promote cooperation among the countries of the world. Is America's oldest expert-analytical center in the field of international relations.

Experts Carnegie directly accused the Assad regime in repeated and periodic use of force (including chemical. weapons) against the "peaceful population".

Experts generally agree that the Syrian authorities had good reasons to strike chemical munitions in Khan the Sheyhun. This is not a one-time event, but part of a wider strategy of dealing with opponents of the "regime" in the province of Hama. The Northern part of the province where turned well-known actions that are important to the SAR government for several reasons:

  • The strategic position. The highway connecting Aleppo with the cities of HOMS and Hama, which are under government control. And mount Zayn al-Abedin, which can be seen Hama and military base of government forces.
  • The area plays a role of a dividing line between the Alawite and Christian towns in the West and South-West under the leadership of the regime and the Sunni cities to the North-East, which are controlled "opposition".
  • The diversity of religious and ethnic composition of the population, particularly in zones of special military importance.
  • The predicament of the troops of ATS in the region.
  • The presence of the reference point of the "armed opposition", supporting the operation of the "rebels" in the nearest government-controlled areas of Syria[25].

"And as the data indicate, this was not the first case of the use of chemical weapons by the regime in the Northern province of Hama that it was not the first crime of the regime"[26], analysts give the following conclusion: Assad had every reason to use chemical weapons. This is really because government troops were unable to strengthen their positions in the region with conventional weapons.

Such arguments lead experts of Carnegie in response to Hunterw Meyer, Director of the research center of the Arab World at the University of Johannes Gutenberg in Mainz. He said that the regime has no reasonable reason to use chemical weapons. "Only armed opposition groups were able to benefit from attacks with chemical weapons," said Meyer. Similarly expressed and Richard black, a Senator of the U.S. state of Virginia. The likelihood that President Bashar al-Assad has authorized the use of chemical weapons is zero. "He had no reason, as it is on the verge of defeat jihadists across the country,"[27], said the Senator.

Experts Carnegie described the strikes on Syria in the first place as a strong signal to all allies and opponents (especially Kim Jong Ynu that the United States is ready to behave more rigidly with him[28]), as well as to raise the credibility of trump's (a sharp contrast with Obama's decision not to bomb Syria in September 2013)[29]. And exactly this was achieved by the administration of the trump[30]. But the current situation is fraught with United States intervention in the Affairs of Syria, with the aim to shift mode, which in turn will make the North Korean leader even stronger to hold on to its nuclear weapons, experts warn.

Strike on Assad restores the promise of a trump to be tougher against Iran and signaled that the United States is not a paper tiger, and Iran probably will have to pay for the support of the "Syrian dictator". The administration of the President of the United States challenge Iran in Yemen, though Yemen is not a priority for Iranians.

While the Russians condemned the attack, "Putin has no desire to quarrel with the United States in Syria." Basically, his position will be created for further actions of the United States, analysts say. "But if the strike was conducted with the aim of preparing for further American pressure on Syria, and indirectly on Russia, it will lead to a us-Russian struggle in Syria, where Moscow has a lot of benefits, especially on the ground"[31].

Obviously, getting rid of Assad will help to destroy ISIS, although this is dependent on the willingness of the administration to trump to stay the course that will require significant resources over a long period of time to which the public, Congress and perhaps the administration of the tramp is not ready, summarize experts.

The current situation shows (again) that lifted up, but hopelessly divided "international community" lacks the will, interest and ability to solve the Syrian issue[32]. The attacks showed the desire and determination of President of the United States more firmly defend the interests of the United States in circumstances where the consequences of any use of American forces against the "Syrian regime" and ISIS is very doubtful for U.S.-Russian relations. And the bombing was motivated by the lack of friendly States ground forces in Syria, analysts are confident of the Fund.

European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) (Berlin, London)

The European Council on foreign relations is one of the leading European think tanks conducting analyses on topics of foreign and security policy.

The experts of the Council described the missile strikes as an act of retaliation for the alleged use of Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons, possibly sarin gas. After six years of conflict, trump dismissed long-standing attempts of his predecessor to prevent the U.S. involvement in the war in Syria. Bombing is a clear message that using chemical weapons will not be tolerated[33].

"Many will welcome a powerful response to the brazen brutality of the Assad regime," but it will not affect the situation on the ground. After all, when the US entering the conflict, they rarely succeed in achieving their goals. The Syrian civil war has become a very complex and internationalized civil war. The participation of even more of the warring parties, the arrival of even more weapons will create a deadlock, which may be solved only by radical methods, experts are sure.

Rocket attacks will likely provoke a new cycle of escalation of the confrontation, repeatedly urging all sides to intensify the fighting. A lot will now depend on whether trump to hold back and to openly convey the message that US will not accept further military action.[34]

Experts note a clear desire of the new US President to distance himself from the weakness of Obama[35], and the Trump can be hard to resist the growth of the American involvement in the conflict.

Clingendael, Netherlands Institute of International Relations (the Hague, Netherlands)

Experts well-known Dutch think tank, one of the world's leading "think tanks" immediately called the missile bombing of the U.S. a one-time action in Syria, which carries a risk: "there's no going back without losing face". Dutch experts see several reasons for the incident.

The decision to strike was the result of an understandable emotional explosion on the part of trump. And to sit idly by, the President could not. He essentially had no choice, it was necessary to distance themselves from the "terrible" predecessor Obama. It is noteworthy, experts say that trump used the phrase "national security interests" as argument to launch the Tomahawks. That is, "to maintain peace and security or international law, and as if it was a kind of self-defense"[36]. Thus, the President of the United States initially played down the humanitarian aspect. Here shows the influence of trends "America first", even if it is not clear what American interests were under threat, experts are sure.

Pretty much a "one-off" operations in the past unintentionally escalated into a protracted military action. So the Americans went to the most cautious way[37]. The conclusion of experts is that there is no strategy to attack using cruise missiles. This one-time warning signal and threat, which was re-formulated by the U.S. government in various applications.

The trump repeats, " I'm not saying anything about their next steps because the unpredictability of my serious asset." America had an impulsive President who prides himself on unpredictability. In the modern unstable world from many points of view, it is not a comforting thought[38], total experts of the Netherlands Institute of International Relations.

The International Crisis Group (the Crisis Group) (Brussels, Belgium)

Experts believe is not as important as to rate American strikes on the airbase. For them to seize, as an opportunity to give impetus to diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis in Syria. Of course, the bombing has raised tensions between Russia and the United States. But still, the risk analysts propose to use as the basis for more serious prosecution of the two countries to their supposedly common interests, especially de-escalation of violence.

From the very beginning of military actions were intended as limited, to deter further chemical attacks. In the United States and Europe, as well as in many middle Eastern countries, the decision of the administration to trump brought relief to those who were dissatisfied with the unwillingness of President Obama to carry out military operation to protect Syrian citizens "from the atrocities of the regime" and to put pressure on him.

However, the centre's experts see in the current situation significant risks. If, for example, chemical attack of the mode continue (the use of chlorine instead of sarin), the United States may be forced to apply additional, more significant strikes and take the increased risk of more serious escalation[39]. The greatest danger of a direct conflict with the core patrons of the regime, Russia and Iran, which may occur in case of additional U.S. bombing. After all, Iran has the ability to retaliate against American interests throughout the region. And possible, Moscow's actions pose an even greater concern: the Russian and the U.S. air force share of the Syrian sky, and the Russian personnel and equipment are essential components of the air defense system of the mode[40]. Moscow has already announced its intentions to suspend cooperation on the joint use of the airspace of Syria and to strengthen air defense cap.

Atlantic Council (Washington, USA)

No less interesting, and, sometimes, just paradoxical thoughts and insights expressed by the experts of the Atlantic Council – an American non-governmental analytical center in the field of international relations, providing the development strategy of NATO.

The centre's experts believe that Russia was surprised by not only the American missile strike on Syrian airbase, but also the use of the Syrian armed forces of chemical weapons, "especially in view of the fact that Russia and Iran made a huge effort to put Bashar al-Assad in an advantageous position politically and from a military point of view"[41].

"Atlanticists" I believe that the Russian response will be limited to hard rhetoric (including threatening to close the skies of Syria for the US air force) and attempt to delineate the "red line" surrounding this incident[42]. That is, it is unlikely that the Kremlin would respond to such actions escalate[43]. However, analysts of the Atlantic Council still expressed cautious concern about the fact that the Russian did not hold out and will provoke a direct conflict with the United States.

At the same time, the current after a rocket attack the situation, though "complicate bilateral relations between Washington and Moscow in the short term, but will not have irreversible impacts on us-Russian relations", - said Alexander Vershbow, a member of the Atlantic Council's Center on International security, former NATO Deputy Secretary General. Moreover, for Russia, the situation creates the greatest risks, according to the experts of the Council. In General, they note that understanding in the USA that "Russia no longer wants a Third world war than the United States"[44].

Members of the Atlantic Council called to consider the attacks on Syrian air base as a "political signal, not the beginning of a company" because "the rocket attack was a one-off and was of a restraining character" and showed the willingness of the new administration to use force if necessary[45]. At the same time, this impact is considered to be insufficient, and Fredric Hof – Director of the Atlantic Council on the Middle East urged the administration to take decisive action and the development of U.S. strategy in Syria, "otherwise this attack will go down in history as a totally useless gesture"[46].

Despite criticism of Russia by the experts of the Council, Hof talks about the need to establish closer contacts with Moscow on all aspects of the Syrian crisis. They also note the speed of reaction of the trump for chemical attack by Bashar al-Assad on civilians in Syria. The speed of decision making trump contrasts sharply with the paralysis of its predecessor[47]. The administration of the new President took less than forty-eight hours to strike.

Experts-"Atlanticists" do not question the fact of a chemical attack with sarin (and not on provocation or fake), which became known from the "white helmets" even the day before the chemical attack in the eve of a meeting in Brussels on Syria and U.S. Secretary of state to Moscow. And the fact of use of chemical weapons, the Council members argue the fact that only the Assad regime had access to it[48]. For some reason, the members of the Council ignored the numerous facts of supply of chemical warfare agents by countries of the Western coalition of armed opposition and a number of small groups affiliated with ISIS.

In Syria, the main objective of the trump and the United States is fighting the terrorists of ISIS. Only changed the position of the politician: he came to the conclusion that "the main part of the Syrian problem is that al-Assad"[49]. And ISIS and al Qaeda exist because of the attacks by the Assad regime on civilian populations, after which ordinary Syrians join the ranks of terrorist groups. In addition, the experts of the Council believe the initiative from 2013 on the withdrawal of chemical weapons from Syria fail because after the failure of the government of Syria against him. weapons in 2013, it was again used on April 4, 2016 with the Syrian authorities to re-poison the civilian population.

In fact for these three reasons, the Syrian President must leave, continue to repeat the analysts. At the same time, they recognize that the administration of the new President there is no vision, how will the change of power in Syria.

In General, aggressive actions the US could "encourage the Russians to control Syria more effectively and harder than ever before", – believe the experts of the Council. They fear a more serious involvement of the Russian Federation and its armed forces in the internal Affairs of Syria, which will undoubtedly complicate United States intervention in the region.

Conclusion

One gets the impression that the decision to bomb the Syrian air bases was made somewhat spontaneously, and the current President of the United States hesitated in making decisions. In this context, it could hardly be free from the emotional component. It is now clear that the actions of the President of the United States can be quite unpredictable, but likely to border on madness. Perhaps the idea to make "act of revenge" for the chemical attack was the result of permanent pressure on the White House side as a significant part of the US political establishment and the network of American think tanks of all stripes, and the various lobbies (primarily Israeli). Their role in making this decision probably played a close and a new President, particularly Jared Kushner and Ivanka trump.

The new President of the United States certainly wanted to demonstrate their power and determination. Overall, he did it. Solidarity with such actions expressed by the leading countries of the world, and some even regarded as a powerful signal to Iran, North Korea, far from the truth.

Most likely, it was a really one-off, a bit emotional and somewhat short-sighted action (after all, trump is a businessman, not a politician). However, after the notorious chemical attack any provocation in Syria in any form can cause a serious aggravation of the situation. In addition, trump seems to have not only a clear strategy of action in Syria, but a clear plan for peace in Syria. It turns out that D. trump is ready to actively advocate for the position that is most beneficial for him at the moment.

It should be noted that open full-scale US intervention in Syria is unlikely, otherwise the States will have to really fight with ISIL and Assad. And such a luxury Washington hardly afford, given the presence of Russian troops on the territory of the Arab Republic. You must take into account the fact that the Russian side had been warned about the planned strike, and, of course, warned the Syrian government. Thus, the victim is initially minimized (beat eventually became "decorative"), despite the informational noise (but the desired effect was generally reached).

Risks of escalation of the Syrian conflict is now higher than in 2013. Strikes on the airfield in Syria will complicate the peace process (which is unlikely due to the aggressive intentions of a number of external actors) and will make the "Syrian opposition" less accommodating. And as a result, the time for "crisis diplomacy", when make the decision the States will have on-the-go without any strategy.

It must be emphasized that after the bombing the air base and a nearby checkpoint of the Syrian army "opposition" launched an offensive on government forces in the area. U.S. strikes can also be interpreted as a response to the recent success of the CAA and VC of the Russian Federation in the cities of Damascus and Hama. Because often, when Syrian troops reach certain success in the fight against militants and "opposition", the Americans are trying to intervene in the fighting. Striking another circumstance. Turkey expressed support for the attacks on the airbase and reiterated that Assad must go. That is, you get such a situation where Turkey abandons the format of Moscow-Ankara-Tehran, and re-joined the Western coalition with a new force start to put pressure on UAR, and Iran. This again is interested in a number of regional players. The question is whether part of the American establishment to force the President to follow the path of escalation and confrontation.

In the end it turns out such a situation in which perhaps as the development of the negotiation process on the settlement of the Syrian crisis (further development of Astana format), with subsequent stabilization in the region. Or a new round of escalation in which external actors will be hard to support the parties of the Syrian conflict until the complete depletion of any of the parties or start a full-scale regional conflict.


Alexander Petrichuk

Bibliography

Electronic sources:

  1. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/finish-him-why-the-world-needs-to-take-out-bashar-al-assad-now/
  2. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-effect-will-trumps-airstrikes-really-have
  3. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/04/07/around-the-halls-what-brookings-middle-east-experts-are-saying-about-the-u-s-airstrikes-on-syria/
  4. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/04/08/syria-missile-strike-could-lead-to-a-political-solution/
  5. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/04/07/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-u-s-strikes-against-syria/
  6. https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/trump-has-sent-message-chemical-weapons-wont-go-unpunished
  7. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-air-strikes-us-donald-trump-assad-capability-not-affected-shayrat-airbase-putin-russia-latest-a7674366.html
  8. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-air-strikes-syria-donald-trump-russia-new-war-armed-conflict-how-worried-should-we-be-airbase-a7672196.html
  9. http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/68653?lang=en
  10. https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/western-policy-towards-syria-applying-lessons-learned
  11. https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/syria-not-lost-yet
  12. https://www.csis.org/analysis/assad-real-butchers-bill-syria
  13. https://www.csis.org/analysis/legality-striking-syria
  14. http://fortune.com/2017/04/07/trump-syria-airstrikes-strategy-missile-strikes-us-attack/
  15. https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-attacks-syria-what-comes-next
  16. https://www.csis.org/analysis/middle-east-notes-and-comment-bombs-bullets-and-leverage
  17. http://carnegie-mec.org/diwan/68649
  18. http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/04/07/trump-just-bombed-syria.-what-next-pub-68606
  19. http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/04/07/why-did-trump-strike-syria-pub-68608
  20. http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/04/06/what-s-america-s-next-move-in-syria-pub-68588
  21. http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_trump_and_syria_the_entanglement_begins_7267
  22. https://soundcloud.com/ecfr/what-trumps-syria-strike-says-about-his-foreign-policy
  23. https://www.clingendael.nl/publication/after-attack-does-trump-have-policy
  24. https://www.clingendael.nl/publicatie/trump-zet-als-%E2%80%98captain-america%E2%80%99-obamadoctrine-te-kijk
  25. https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/eastern-mediterranean/syria/syria-hidden-power-iran
  26. https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/eastern-mediterranean/syria/syria-after-us-strike-what-should-come-next
  27. http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/assad-missile-strikes-chemical-weapons-syria
  28. http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/us-strike-in-syria-unlikely-to-provoke-russian-response
  29. http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/assad-missile-strikes-chemical-weapons-syria
  30. http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/syriasource/syria-get-civilians-off-the-bullseye
  31. http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/trump-has-few-options-to-respond-to-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria
  32. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/04/08/a-practical-guide-for-avoiding-fallacies-on-syria/
  33. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/tillerson-haley-syria-assad-turkey
  34. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/us-said-to-weigh-military-responses-to-syrian-chemical-attack.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
  35. https://www.brookings.edu/topic/syria/
  36. https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/it-no-longer-possible-ignore-threat-ieds
  37. https://www.csis.org/csis-us-missile-strike-syria/?block4
  38. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/rules-of-engagement-military-force-mattis.html?_r=1
  39. https://riss.ru/analitycs/39777/
  40. http://www.cfr.org/cybersecurity/department-defense-strategy-operating-cyberspace/p25479
  41. http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_time_to_play_the_money_card_in_syria_7261
  42. http://carnegie.ru/2017/04/10/russia-needs-american-help-to-seal-deal-in-syria-pub-68632
  43. http://carnegie-mec.org/diwan/68558
  44. http://carnegie-mec.org/2017/03/28/local-wars-and-chance-for-decentralized-peace-in-syria-pub-68369
  45. http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/this-is-how-the-world-is-reacting-to-the-us-strikes-in-syria
  46. https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1144598/statement-from-pentagon-spokesman-capt-jeff-davis-on-us-strike-in-syria
  47. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/04/07/around-the-halls-what-brookings-middle-east-experts-are-saying-about-the-u-s-airstrikes-on-syria/

 

 

[1] https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/finish-him-why-the-world-needs-to-take-out-bashar-al-assad-now/

[2] https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-effect-will-trumps-airstrikes-really-have

[3] Sm. there

[4] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/04/07/around-the-halls-what-brookings-middle-east-experts-are-saying-about-the-u-s-airstrikes-on-syria/

[5] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/04/08/syria-missile-strike-could-lead-to-a-political-solution/

[6] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/04/08/syria-missile-strike-could-lead-to-a-political-solution/

[7] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/04/07/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-u-s-strikes-against-syria/

[8] Cm. there

[9] https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/trump-has-sent-message-chemical-weapons-wont-go-unpunished

[10] Cm. there

[11] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-air-strikes-us-donald-trump-assad-capability-not-affected-shayrat-airbase-putin-russia-latest-a7674366.html

[12] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-air-strikes-syria-donald-trump-russia-new-war-armed-conflict-how-worried-should-we-be-airbase-a7672196.html

[13] http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/68653?lang=en

[14] https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/western-policy-towards-syria-applying-lessons-learned

[15] https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/syria-not-lost-yet

[16] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-air-strikes-syria-donald-trump-russia-new-war-armed-conflict-how-worried-should-we-be-airbase-a7672196.html

[17] https://www.csis.org/analysis/assad-real-butchers-bill-syria

[18] https://www.csis.org/analysis/legality-striking-syria

[19] http://fortune.com/2017/04/07/trump-syria-airstrikes-strategy-missile-strikes-us-attack/

[20] https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-attacks-syria-what-comes-next

[21] Cm. there

[22] Cm. there

[23] http://fortune.com/2017/04/07/trump-syria-airstrikes-strategy-missile-strikes-us-attack/

[24] https://www.csis.org/analysis/middle-east-notes-and-comment-bombs-bullets-and-leverage

[25] In the "opposition" according to experts at the Carnegie includes the Hyatt Tahrir al-sham (according to the experts of the Carnegie were formerly affiliated with al-Qaeda), Jaysh al-Izzah and other groups who went in a simultaneous attack on the positions of "mode" in the Northern province of Hama on 20 March, occupying the city and threatening two more: the Christian city of Morada to the North-West of Hama and the city that the Sunnis of Camana.

[26] http://carnegie-mec.org/diwan/68649

[27] Cm. there

[28] it will Also attract the attention of its Chinese defenders

[29] http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/04/07/trump-just-bombed-syria.-what-next-pub-68606

[30] http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/04/07/why-did-trump-strike-syria-pub-68608

[31] Cm. there

[32] http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/04/06/what-s-america-s-next-move-in-syria-pub-68588

[33] http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_trump_and_syria_the_entanglement_begins_7267

[34] Sm. there

[35] https://soundcloud.com/ecfr/what-trumps-syria-strike-says-about-his-foreign-policy 7:00

[36] https://www.clingendael.nl/publication/after-attack-does-trump-have-policy

[37] Cm. there

[38] https://www.clingendael.nl/publicatie/trump-zet-als-%E2%80%98captain-america%E2%80%99-obamadoctrine-te-kijk

[39] https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/eastern-mediterranean/syria/syria-hidden-power-iran

[40] https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/eastern-mediterranean/syria/syria-after-us-strike-what-should-come-next

[41] http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/assad-missile-strikes-chemical-weapons-syria

[42] http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/us-strike-in-syria-unlikely-to-provoke-russian-response

[43] Cm. there

[44] http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/us-strike-in-syria-unlikely-to-provoke-russian-response

[45] Cm.

[46] http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/assad-missile-strikes-chemical-weapons-syria

[47] http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/syriasource/syria-get-civilians-off-the-bullseye

[48] http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/trump-has-few-options-to-respond-to-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria

[49] http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/assad-missile-strikes-chemical-weapons-syria

Tags: Syria , USA


RELATED MATERIALS: Defence and security
Возрастное ограничение