This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/07/by-bombing-assad-base-trump-made-his-point-but-what-happens-next

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
By bombing Assad base, Trump made his point. But what happens next? By bombing Assad base, Trump made his point. But what happens next?
(about 7 hours later)
Donald Trump has made his point. The Pentagon confirmed on Thursday night that the salvo of cruise missiles fired at the al-Shayrat airbase near Homs marked the full extent of the US president’s response to Bashar al-Assad’s use of nerve gas against his own people. Donald Trump has made his point. The Pentagon confirmed on Thursday night that the salvo of cruise missiles fired at the Shayrat airbase near Homs marked the full extent of the US president’s response to Bashar al-Assad’s use of a nerve agent against his own people.
The ostensible aim was to punish Assad for using chemical weapons and deter him from doing so again. What happens next will depend largely on Assad and his Russian backers. The ostensible aim was to punish Assad for using chemical weapons and to deter him from doing so again. What happens next will depend largely on Assad and his Russian backers.
It seems unlikely he would risk escalating US involvement in Syria through more chemical attacks, but then it is a mystery why he would have taken such a risk in the first place.It seems unlikely he would risk escalating US involvement in Syria through more chemical attacks, but then it is a mystery why he would have taken such a risk in the first place.
The Syrian leader may simply have misjudged Trump, taking him at his word when he strongly opposed US military action after the 2013 sarin attacks and when he signalled his intent to focus on fighting Islamic State and other jihadis.The Syrian leader may simply have misjudged Trump, taking him at his word when he strongly opposed US military action after the 2013 sarin attacks and when he signalled his intent to focus on fighting Islamic State and other jihadis.
Russian reaction, on the other hand, will depend on whether Moscow was complicit in the use of chemical weapons. Pentagon officials said there was a Russian military presence at al-Shayrat, from where they say the planes carrying the chemical bombs used in Tuesday’s gas attack took off. Vladimir Putin has already made his own first counter-move, suspending the “deconfliction channel” between the US and Russian militaries, which allowed them to tell each other where they were sending their planes so they did not collide.
Moscow was supposed to guarantee that Syria rid itself of its chemical weapons arsenal after 2013, yet these new attacks appear to have been launched from under Russian noses. In Rex Tillerson’s words, “either Russia has been complicit or Russia has been incompetent”. It forces the US to severely limit its air campaign against Isis or risk a head-on clash with Russia that could spiral out of control. It could mean Russian and Syrian radars start locking on to US and allied planes as they approach Syrian airspace, which might unnerve some allies and encourage them to leave the coalition.
Tillerson may find out more when he arrives in Moscow next Tuesday for his first visit as secretary of state. That meeting is likely to be far more tense than Vladimir Putin expected – with a man whom he had given the Order of Friendship in 2013, when the Texan was the head of ExxonMobil and looking for oil deals. Moscow has left the door open for a deal. It has only announced the suspension of deconfliction, and the foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, has said the situation is not irreversible.
Putin is believed by US intelligence to have used various “active measures” to skew the 2016 election in Trump’s favour. That investment is having unintended consequences now. The new president has been prevented by political constraints from granting sanctions relief to Russia. He has vowed to carry out a huge armament programme, nuclear and conventional, that will make it extremely costly for Putin to keep up. And now he has taken direct military action against a close Kremlin ally, something Barack Obama shied away from. Putin’s negotiating position will depend a lot on whether Moscow was complicit in the use of chemical weapons. Pentagon officials said there was a Russian military presence at Shayrat, so the chemical attack appears to have been launched from under Russian noses. In Rex Tillerson’s words, “either Russia has been complicit or Russia has been incompetent”.
So far, Moscow has stuck with denial, claiming the scores of deaths by poison gas in Khan Sheikhun were caused by a conventional Syrian regime bomb hitting a terrorist chemical weapons facility. If Russia was complicit in the chemical weapons attack, with the aim of demonstrating US impotence in Syria, Putin could raise the stakes. If he was taken by surprise by Assad’s recklessness, he will look to mend relations with the US as fast as possible and focus pressure on Damascus to end the use of its covert chemical arsenal.
It was a version of events disproved by a Guardian report from the stricken town, but such factual accounts are unlikely to make the Kremlin waver. Tillerson will find out more about Russia’s stance when he arrives in Moscow for his first visit as secretary of state. That meeting is likely to be far more tense than Putin expected – it being with a man whom he had given the Order of Friendship in 2013, when the Texan was the head of ExxonMobil and looking for oil deals.
The big question is not which account Moscow will stick to, but whether it will retaliate. If Russia was complicit in the chemical weapons attack, with the aim of demonstrating US impotence in Syria, Putin could raise the stakes. If he was taken by surprise by Assad’s recklessness, he will presumably try to make Damascus pay by diminishing Russian support. Putin is believed by US intelligence to have used various “active measures” to skew the 2016 American election in Trump’s favour. That investment is having unintended consequences now. Trump has been prevented by political constraints from granting sanctions relief to Russia. He has vowed to carry out a huge armament programme, nuclear and conventional, that will make it extremely costly for Putin to keep up. And now he has taken direct military action against a close Kremlin ally, something Barack Obama shied away from.
Tillerson’s Moscow trip will also be a test of the Trump administration. On Thursday, the secretary of state said despite the strikes it had not changed its objectives in Syria, ie fighting Isis first, leaving efforts towards a broader peace deal and transition until later. “There has been no change in that status,” he said. Tillerson’s Moscow trip will also be a test for the Trump administration. On Thursday, the secretary of state said that despite the strikes the US had not changed its objectives in Syria, ie fighting Isis first, leaving efforts towards a broader peace deal and transition until later. “There has been no change in that status,” he said.
If that remains the case, the Russians would be allowed to continue to help Assad demolish Syrian cities but with conventional bombs rather than poison gas. If that remains the case, Russia would be allowed to continue to help Assad demolish Syrian cities but with conventional bombs rather than a nerve agent.
But if Trump is determined to get rid of Assad, and use his military leverage to do so, there can be no return to the status quo.But if Trump is determined to get rid of Assad, and use his military leverage to do so, there can be no return to the status quo.
Russia can be expected to challenge the US at the UN security council over the legality of the US attack. Tillerson attempted to sketch out an argument that it was a preventative strike to stop chemical weapons getting in the hands of terrorists who could use them against the US. But that tenuous self-defence justification was weakened by the Pentagon’s insistence that the goal of the strike was not to destroy chemical weapons. In fact, it took great pains to avoid bombing any sites where chemical weapons may have been stored, for fear of causing civilian casualties downwind. Russia can be expected to challenge the US at the UN security council over the legality of the US attack. Tillerson attempted to sketch out an argument that it was a preventative strike to stop chemical weapons getting into the hands of terrorists who could use them against the US. But that tenuous self-defence justification was weakened by the Pentagon’s insistence that the goal of the strike was not to destroy chemical weapons. In fact, it took great pains to avoid bombing any sites where chemical weapons may have been stored, for fear of causing civilian casualties downwind.
The Trump administration will also face legal challenges from a Congress that has not authorised acts of war in Syria, but only from a minority. On the whole it will consolidate support on the hawkish end of the Republican party, which has been most anxious about his links with Moscow. Whether or not it contributed to the decision to strike, the fallout is likely to help Trump deflect attention from the multiple investigation into possible collusion between his associates and the Russian government.The Trump administration will also face legal challenges from a Congress that has not authorised acts of war in Syria, but only from a minority. On the whole it will consolidate support on the hawkish end of the Republican party, which has been most anxious about his links with Moscow. Whether or not it contributed to the decision to strike, the fallout is likely to help Trump deflect attention from the multiple investigation into possible collusion between his associates and the Russian government.
The first foreigner to be able to assess the real significance of the airstrikes will be Xi Jinping, who sits down to a working meeting with Trump in Florida on Friday morning. Trump ordered the attack just before the two leaders sat down for dinner in Mar-a-Lago. It is not yet clear whether Trump informed the Chinese president of his decision over the dinner table. Either way, it will make for an awkward encounter after breakfast. The first foreigner to be able to assess the real significance of the airstrikes will be Xi Jinping, who sat down to a working meeting with Trump in Florida on Friday morning. Trump ordered the attack just before the two leaders sat down for dinner in Mar-a-Lago. It is not yet clear whether Trump informed the Chinese president of his decision over the dinner table. Either way, it will have made for an awkward encounter right after breakfast.
However limited Trump claims the aims of the strikes were, their ramifications will be global. Xi will have to recalculate what Trump might do if North Korea continues its missile and nuclear tests, or if Chinese and US forces collide unexpectedly in the South China Sea. He will look across the conference table at a president who has shown himself willing to pull the trigger on some of the most powerful conventional weapons in the world.However limited Trump claims the aims of the strikes were, their ramifications will be global. Xi will have to recalculate what Trump might do if North Korea continues its missile and nuclear tests, or if Chinese and US forces collide unexpectedly in the South China Sea. He will look across the conference table at a president who has shown himself willing to pull the trigger on some of the most powerful conventional weapons in the world.