海角大神

The US has launched its first punitive military strikes against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria since the civil war there began six years ago, a powerful message that Washington will no longer tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the civilian population.

President Trump鈥檚 administration indicated that the strikes, which saw 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired at Syria鈥檚 Shayrat airbase near Homs, were linked only to the chemical weapons attack Tuesday that killed at least 86 people, including 27 children, in Khan Sheikhoun in rebel-held Idlib Province.

And while they may have chastened Mr. Assad, analysts say, they do not appear to signal a broader change of US policy on Syria that would pose a longer-term threat to his hold on power.

鈥淭his [missile attack] clearly indicates the president is willing to take decisive action when called for,鈥� Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters late Thursday. "I would not in any way attempt to extrapolate that to a change in our policy or posture relative to our military activities in Syria today. There has been no change in that status.鈥�

Those comments might offer some reassurance to Assad that the air strikes were more a slap on the wrist than the beginning of a knockout blow. And with the war in Syria slowly turning in his favor 鈥� and with his two key allies, Russia and Iran, continuing to stand by him 鈥� Assad looks likely to stay in power, a reality that Syria鈥檚 neighbors and the international community reluctantly have had to accept.

鈥淲e should not invest the limited American military attack with any strategic connotations so far,鈥� says Fawaz Gerges, a Middle East expert at the London School of Economics (LSE). 鈥淚t鈥檚 an attack divorced from any strategic political vision. It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration has any concrete ideas to find a political solution. I鈥檓 very skeptical.鈥�

Mr. Gerges warns, however, that military action on its own, absent a strategy, is inherently hard to contain, and could lead to an unintended deepening of US military involvement if Russia and Iran redouble their support for Assad even as Syrian rebels try to use the US strikes as leverage.

鈥淭his administration is enamored with hard power,鈥� says Gerges, author of the book, 鈥淚SIS: A History.鈥� But 鈥渨ithout soft power 鈥� without diplomacy, and a political strategy 鈥撀爉ilitary actions might be counter-productive.鈥�

Julien Barnes-Dacey, a Middle East analyst at the European Council on Foreign Relations, warns that the strikes鈥� ability to trigger an escalation derives from the region鈥檚 very different perceptions of US military power, including fears in Syria and Iran that the ultimate objective could become regime change.

鈥淥bviously, Trump has framed this through a narrow proliferation lens, and the attacks were very limited. But I don鈥檛 think anyone else on the ground or internationally is going to see them through that same narrow lens,鈥� says Mr. Barnes-Dacey, speaking from Brussels.

鈥淔or [Syria鈥檚] opposition and its backers, there鈥檚 long been a sense that once you get US skin in the game, an escalatory cycle will quickly take over.鈥�

Cost of Assad's rule

Whether or not the retaliatory strikes have any impact on Assad鈥檚 hold on power, his survival after six years of war has come at an increasing cost. Assad took office in 2000 on the death of his father, Hafez, and hopes were initially invested in him as a reformer who would modernize the ossified police state he inherited.

Seventeen years later, Assad has achieved an international pariah status unseen since the days of Iraq鈥檚 Saddam Hussein. His country has been devastated, the economy ruined, an estimated more than 400,000 people are dead, and the conflict has created the largest refugee crisis Europe has witnessed since World War II.

His regime controls only about 35 percent of Syria, with the rest carved up between various Arab and Kurdish militias and the extremist Islamic State group (ISIS). He stands accused of employing chemical nerve agents against his own population and executing tens of thousands of people in regime prisons. Even if the war subsides and thoughts turn to rebuilding, it is difficult to see which countries or what global institutions would be willing to bankroll a multi-billion dollar reconstruction process with Assad still enthroned in the presidential palace.

鈥淢aybe Bashar will stay for some time now, but eventually, sooner or later [he will go], nothing stays the same in this region,鈥� Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri said recently, speaking to a group of foreign reporters. Mr. Hariri鈥檚 father, Rafik, was assassinated in 2005, with Assad鈥檚 Syria widely believed to have been involved.

鈥淚t would be foolish to think that this regime is still in control in Syria,鈥� Hariri adds. 鈥淭he people who are in control in Syria are the Russians and the Iranians.鈥�

Russia holds its fire

Moscow, meanwhile, has reacted angrily to the air strikes, calling them an 鈥渁ggression against a sovereign nation鈥� and announcing an end to the de-confliction mechanism set up between Washington and Moscow to prevent accidental clashes between US and Russian aircraft over Syria, where both nations fly ostensibly on 鈥渁nti-terror鈥� missions against ISIS.

The Pentagon alerted Russia before it launched the cruise missile attack, as well as NATO allies Turkey and Britain, and the Russian forces do not appear to have activated their S-300 and S-400 air defense systems, which could have intercepted some of the cruise missiles.

鈥淭here was an effort to minimize risk to third party nationals at the airport 鈥� I think you can read Russians from that. We took great pains to try to avoid that,鈥� Trump鈥檚 national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, told reporters.

The Pentagon鈥檚 target, meanwhile, an operational air base, is seen as having a negligible impact on Assad鈥檚 ability to continue waging war. Initial accounts of the attack suggest that aircraft and hangars were destroyed and the runway rendered inoperable.

Assad鈥檚 real military weakness, however, is not a lack of aircraft but insufficient ground forces to battle rebel groups, which is why his regime has had to rely on allies such as Iran, Lebanon鈥檚 Hezbollah, and Shiite paramilitary forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia鈥檚 contribution to the Assad war effort has been mainly air support, and Moscow could deploy more aircraft to Syria if needed to plug any shortfall caused by US bombing.

On Thursday, Assad was quoted as repeating his determination to claw back the entire country, telling a Croatian newspaper that there was no 鈥渙ption except victory.鈥�

鈥淚f we do not win this war, it means that Syria will be deleted from the map,鈥� he told Vecernji List newspaper. 鈥淲e have no choice in facing this war, and that鈥檚 why we are confident, we are persistent, and we are determined.鈥�

Why chemical weapons?

Assad鈥檚 critical manpower shortage may be a reason the regime allegedly opted for chemical weapons in Idlib, analysts say.

鈥淎ssad doesn鈥檛 have anywhere close to the men to retake his territory, that鈥檚 why he鈥檚 using chemical weapons,鈥� says Andrew Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. 鈥淭his [US strike] is a clear message he will not be able to gas his way over the two-thirds of Syrian territory outside his control.鈥�

Some analysts suspect that despite the posturing from the Kremlin, Russian President Vladimir Putin believed Assad deserved some kind of punishment for the gratuitous use of chemical weapons against civilians 鈥� as well as his lack of cooperation in a Russian-led effort to negotiate a peace deal between the regime and the opposition.

鈥淚 suspect that the Russians are furious with their ne'er-do-well client,鈥� says Frederic Hof, director of the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East and a former State Department point man on Syria under President Barack Obama. 鈥淲hy in the world would you use chemicals when everything is going your way?鈥�

It remains to be seen whether the missile strike against the air base is a one-off response to the use of nerve agents or whether the Trump administration will repeat such operations anytime Syrian government forces inflict mass civilian casualties, whether with chemical weapons or conventional means.

Military action 鈥渨ould not likely reverse the tide of the conflict against Assad,鈥� says Mr. Hof. 鈥淏ut it could be significant enough to teach Assad that mass civilian casualty events will no longer be cost-free. This would be important, because as long as civilians are on the bullseye, there can be no meaningful or productive peace negotiations.鈥�