In the span of just two days, the United States went from being uninterested in the Syrian war to seeming to threaten military action against president Bashar Al Assad’s government.
The chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of people in Syria’s north-western Idlib province on Tuesday shook US president Donald Trump, a man who campaigned on an anti-interventionist foreign policy and fiercely opposed former president Barack Obama’s attempt to use force in Syria after a sarin attack in 2013.
On Thursday, a US official said the Pentagon was presenting the Trump administration with a range of possible military options that Washington could take in response to Tuesday’s attack.
The official stressed that no decisions had been taken but as the US weighs its next move in the first big international crisis of Mr Trump’s presidency, major questions loom.
First, is now a better time for military intervention against the Assad regime than 2013? The proposition was fraught with potential risks even at that time, and the battlefield in Syria has only become more complicated and crowded since.
Syria’s rebels today lack what unity they had then and some groups have tilted towards extremism or fallen into the orbit of Jabhat Fatah Al Sham, once a branch of Al Qaeda. Russia and Turkey have deployed troops in the country and the role of Iran-backed Hizbollah has only deepened. ISIL, which was in its infancy in 2013, is suffering losses in Syria but remains a force to be reckoned with.
Strikes that significantly damage the Syrian government’s fighting capabilities could lead to ISIL, Jabhat Fatah Al Sham and hardline militias making gains. Giving extremists even more of a foothold in Syria would only complicate things for the US further down the road.
Launching or seriously threatening anti-government strikes in Syria while Russian troops are active in the conflict sets the US up for a showdown with Moscow. Russia could threaten to defend the Syrian government, resulting in a dangerous game of chicken between Washington and Moscow.
And even if Moscow’s forces sit idly by while the US bombs Syrian government targets, there is a very real possibility that Russian personnel could be hit by accident. If Washington finds itself in conflict with Russia in Syria, the consequences could be devastating.
US strikes against Mr Al Assad’s government could also provoke Hizbollah to retaliate with attacks on American interests and allies around the world.
The second question is, what would a US military intervention look like?
Mr Trump has consistently said he does not plan on helping America’s enemies by ruining the element of surprise. If he does intend to take action against the Assad government, he is unlikely to seek congressional approval first as Mr Obama tried to do in 2013.
If military action does come, it is difficult to say how strong it will be or how long it might last.
In 2013 the Obama administration sought to launch “limited” strikes to degrade the Syrian government’s ability to carry out chemical weapons attacks. Mr Obama asked congress for 60 days of military action – excluding boots on the ground – with the possibility of a 30-day extension.
The US has significant military assets in the region that could be used to hit the Syrian government, but the Trump administration may shy away from some options to avoid upsetting allies.
Washington has used Turkey’s Incirlik airbase to bomb ISIL targets. But with Turkish troops already on the ground in Syria fighting ISIL and Kurdish forces, Ankara could be wary about letting the US attack Syrian government targets from its territory – doing so could land Turkish troops and their Syrian proxies in an unwanted fight with Mr Al Assad.
Iraq, meanwhile, which is friendly with Iran and dominated by Tehran-backed Shiite militias, could also take issue with the US trying to use its territory or air space.
In 2013 the Obama administration’s plan appeared to focus on using cruise missiles fired from warships in the eastern Mediterranean. It’s possible a Trump intervention could begin the same way.
And lastly, would Mr Trump really launch an intervention?
The complicated battlefield in Syria could be enough to deter the US president from launching a military intervention against the Assad government, but there is also the effect it could have on his popularity among supporters.
A number of Trump supporters were attracted by his non-interventionist foreign policy – his stated belief that the US had spent too much blood, money and time getting involved in conflicts that were not America’s problem. The president embraced the sentiment that even though dictators such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi and Mr Al Assad do horrible things, removing them only breeds more instability and provides an opening for extremists.
Although Mr Trump had a sudden change of heart about Syria after seeing videos and photographs of Tuesday’s attack in Idlib, many of his supporters might not feel the same way. Putting American troops in harm’s way could fray their trust and might even alienate some.
He also needs to worry about the so-called “alt-right”, a loose far-right political grouping that rejects mainstream conservatism but drives many current conservative talking points and claims to have propelled Mr Trump to the presidency. Perpetually seeking to counter “mainstream media”, some members of the alt-right have adopted the Syrian government and Russian narratives of the Syrian war.
Indeed on Wednesday, Infowars, a pro-Trump media network run by the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, broadcast a live programme titled False Flag in Syria. The programme's hosts, between peddling dietary supplements, alleged that the Idlib chemical weapons attack was staged to trick Mr Trump into a conflict with Damascus and Moscow.
Another pillar of the alt-right, Mike Cernovich, tweeted that the Idlib attack was carried out by the “deep state” aided by the “fake news media”. Mr Cernovich, who also pushed the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, is so mainstream that last week the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr, said he deserved a Pulitzer prize for his work.
If Mr Trump’s most rabid propagandists turn on him over Syria, he will be in trouble.
jwood@thenational.ae
* With additional reporting from Agence France-Presse
