Objectives, Consequences of US Strike on Syria
TEHRAN(Basirat): an analyst says the United States’ recent missile attack on a Syrian airbase will only play into the hands of terrorists and infuse new life into their activities.
Basirat political center
Political commentator Farzan Shahidi has weighed in on Washington’s military
aggression against Syria. The following are his comments on the incident.
US First Military Aggression on Syria
The Trump administration’s first military intervention in Syria began to unfold
on Friday, April 7, when the US targeted the al-Shayrat airbase in the Syrian
province of Homs with 59 Tomahawk missiles.
So far, the attack has left at least 10 people dead and several wounded, among
them civilians. Nine Syrian jet fighters were destroyed in the missile strike as
well.
Objectives of US Missile Attack
The White House’s pretext for the missile strike was the unsubstantiated
allegation that Damascus used chemical weapons in the town of Khan Shaykhun in
Syria’s Idlib province. Washington announced the missile attack was a punitive
measure against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad. The US claimed
it targeted the runway, fuel depots and jet fighters at the al-Shayrat military
airbase. The Pentagon also claims the airbase was used to stockpile chemical
arms.
Choosing the al-Shayrat military airbase as the target was a calculated move.
One of the goals and ambitions of the US is to undermine the strength of the
Syrian army and Air Force in order to tip the balance of power in the Syrian
conflict.
The Syrian Air Force backed by Russian warplanes has managed to carry out
targeted and successful attacks against the positions of terrorist groups and
gain the upper hand in the conflict. Therefore, striking Syrian targets will
reduce the Syrian army’s power in the current war. In comments following the US
missile strike, US President Donald Trump said the attack was in line with
Washington’s vital national interests. He asked all countries to join the US to,
in his words, end killing and bloodshed in Syria. According to American sources,
Russia had been informed prior to the attack. Russian troops had been told to
leave the al-Shayrat military airbase, so Russian forces and military hardware
were not harmed in the attack.
Washington’s having informed Moscow of the attack beforehand suggests that the
US is not seeking direct confrontation with Russia in Syria. The US missile
strike followed the UN Security Council’s Thursday meeting convened to review
the chemical incident in Khan Shaykhun. The session had ended without a vote on
the proposed draft resolutions.
Reactions
Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Bahram Qassemi categorically condemned the US
missile strike.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran, as the biggest victim of chemical weapons in
contemporary history, denounces any use of chemical arms irrespective of [who]
the perpetrators and victims [are], and at the same time, regards using this
pretext to take unilateral action as dangerous, destructive and contrary to the
principles of international law,” said the spokesman.
He said Iran decries the missile attack on Syria by American vessels, and
believes the move will only strengthen dwindling terrorists and further
complicate the situation in Syria as well as in the whole region. He said the
attack was conducted under the pretext of a suspected chemical attack in Idlib,
whose timing, perpetrators and beneficiaries remain in a shroud of secrecy.
Ramifications and Consequences
The missile attack on al-Shayrat airbase in Homs province was the first direct
and officially announced US military strike on a Syrian military base, which was
unprecedented and suggests a change in the US policy vis-à-vis Syria. What is
noteworthy, and at the same time contradictory, is that Trump, both during his
election campaign and after assuming office as president, always took a swipe at
Barack Obama’s policies and approach toward the Syria crisis. Trump also
questioned Obama’s allegation regarding the use of chemical weapons in 2012. But
the recent US missile strike brought to light the fact that Trump, too, believes
the Syrian army has used chemical arms. The only difference is that Obama did
not take military action against Syria. However, Trump got engaged in military
intervention at the beginning of his tenure as president.
With this attack, political and field equations in Syria have entered a new
phase, and efforts by Iran and Russia to establish peace might be undermined.
Until the attack took place, Syria and its allies, Iran and Russia, had the
upper hand in the Syria conflict. But the US move has served as a shot in the
arm and a new green light for terrorists and their regional supporters.
Moreover, the Syrian National Alliance, which is the official opposition
authority in Syria, has welcomed the US attack and called for the continuation
of such strikes.
Ahmad Ramadan, the spokesman for the Syrian National Alliance, says the
opposition coalition embraces the missile attack and calls on the White House to
destroy the Assad government’s capabilities in such a way that Syria would not
be able to use warplanes in its attacks. The European allies of the United
States together with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Israeli regime have all
welcomed Washington’s military aggression against Syria, which gives Trump an
open hand to assume the leadership of the opposition and militants and exert
more pressure on Syria, Russia and the resistance front. Of course, it is
unlikely that Trump is trying to open a new front in Syria and west Asia,
because any military action, especially one against Syria, would harm
Washington-Moscow relations and pit the US against Russia. Naturally, Trump and
his Cabinet wouldn’t like to see such a thing happen, and that is why voices
opposing the US strike on Syria are being heard inside the United States.
To cap it all, we can say that the US missile strike was conducted on a small
scale under the pretext that Damascus used chemical arms, so that, on the one
hand, the strike would be justifiable to the international public opinion, and
on the other, the US would avoid a serious confrontation with Russia.
Furthermore, by adopting a security-military approach at the beginning of his
presidency, Trump is trying to redress the image of Washington’s failed
diplomacy in the region and in the whole world, which is a legacy of the Obama
administration, and to present himself as a powerful and influential figure. It
is not clear whether or not the novice US president will succeed or not, and,
hence, he should be awaiting the negative consequences and ensuing challenges of
this scenario.