U.S. President Donald Trump, in a filmed statement from his Mar-a-lago resort Thursday night – where he is currently meeting President Xi – said the strike was “in [the] vital national security interest of the U.S.,” adding that “years of previous attempts at changing Assad’s behavior have all failed.” The Syrian army has said that the strike killed six Syrian soldiers, and claimed that the attack made Washington a “partner” to “terrorist groups.” A spokesman for the Russian government, Dmitry Peskov, also denounced the attack as unprovoked “aggression against a sovereign nation,” and the Kremlin has suspended its air safety agreement with the U.S. in retaliation. Other countries, including the United Kingdom, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Australia have supported the strike.
Thursday night’s attack represents a striking about face for the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump. Just one week ago, administration officials seemed ready to abandon the idea of regime change in Syria, a longstanding Obama Administration policy. On Friday, White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, stated that the Trump administration “accepts the political reality” of Assad’s rule, while Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, observed vaguely that Assad’s fate would be “decided by the Syrian people.” Now, the Trump administration has taken the most significant U.S. military action against Assad since the Syrian civil war started six years ago.
The Cipher Brief asked Network Expert Admiral James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, about the military significance of the strike.
The Cipher Brief: What was the strategic role of the strike?
Adm. James Stavridis: This was a proportional, legal, and professional strike that won't change the facts on the ground or have significant, tactical impact. But it is a big strategic message to three audiences: the allies (NATO, Saudis, Gulf States); the domestic audience (Trump Administration is decisive and fast to react); and above all, the opponents (Assad, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China). It hardly seems coincidental that [Chinese] President Xi [Jinping] is right there while Tomahawks fly. It sends a strong indicator of U.S. willingness to use force against North Korea, which might have a salutary effect on the talks between the two leaders.
TCB: What signal does it send to the Assad regime?
Stavridis: It is a warning against using chemical weapons again, as well as putting Assad on notice that we have not fallen off the position of opposing his continuing in power. It says "there is more where this came from," and hopefully will produce a more cautionary approach by both Assad and his patrons in Moscow.
TCB: What message does this send to Syria’s allies Russia and Iran?
Stavridis: It says the U.S. is willing to use force. It will enforce stated red lines. It has global reach and capability; and will not simply cede the Middle East to a Moscow-Tehran axis.
TCB: What should the U.S. do next?
Stavridis: They should push the Russians hard to reign in or abandon Assad. They should establish safe zones in eastern and northern Syria. They should put real muscle behind protecting humanitarian efforts, increase arms and support to the moderate Syrian resistance. They need to get the negotiations back on track and begin to discuss the possibility of deconstructing Syria, much as was done to solve the Balkan problems in the 1990s.
