Washington is prepared to take more robust approach
If his administration’s past conduct on Syria is anything to go by, Donald Trump believes military action is the best way to respond to the Assad regime’s suspected use of chemical weapons in an attack on a rebel-held suburb of Damascus that has killed 70 people.
Unlike the previous Obama administration, which failed to follow up on its threat in 2013 to respond militarily to any attempt by the Syrian dictator to deploy chemical weapons, Mr Trump has shown he is prepared to take a more robust approach to the Middle Eastern despot.
This time last year, Washington fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Assad regime’s Shayrat airfield after it was said to have been used to launch a chemical weapons attack that claimed the lives of 80 Syrian civilians.
Washington’s military intervention was deemed a success, as it succeeded in destroying a large number of Syrian aircraft, thereby severely reducing the regime’s ability to mount such attacks.
One year on, and the accusation that the regime has used chemical weapons on Douma suggests the regime, which enjoys strong military support from Russia and Iran, has regained both the ability and the self-confidence to mount such attacks again.
Consequently, Mr Trump’s warning that there will be a “big price to pay” for the attack means Washington is preparing for another military confrontation with the regime.
But unlike last year’s attack, when the Americans acted unilaterally, pressure is now mounting on allies like Britain and France to support a fresh military strike against Damascus.
After Theresa May, who is on an official visit to Sweden, described the Douma attack as “barbaric”, Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary,
yesterday busied himself discussing possible options for retaliation with his French and US counterparts.
Having worked closely with the Americans in the military campaign to defeat Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), Britain’s Armed Forces are well-versed in conducting military operations in Syria.
The more difficult question, though, is whether Mrs May’s government has sufficient political support to back any military response the Americans may be planning.
Thanks to David Cameron, her predecessor, the parliamentary precedent has now been set whereby any overseas intervention by the British military requires Commons approval. It was Mr Cameron’s failure to win such backing in a 2013 vote that thwarted his plans to strike against Assad when the dictator was first accused of using chemical weapons against his own people.
With Jeremy Corbyn assuming his usual non-committal stance on confronting rogue states, the Prime Minister might also struggle to win Commons backing.
The fact that Mr Trump called Emmanuel Macron, the French president, prior to calling Mrs May should be seen as an indication of Washington’s enduring wariness about Britain’s ability to support military interventions. Unlike Mrs May, the French president has no constraints on his authority when it comes to launching military action, and if Washington is looking for a prompt response against the Assad regime, he might find the French are in a better position to act than the British.
That said, Mrs May finds herself in a strong position following her nononsense approach to the Salisbury poisoning, over which she has received strong support from a number of allies, including France and the US. She can, therefore, make a compelling argument in favour of backing a united Western response to the use of chemical weapons.
And not even Mr Corbyn could argue with that.