After strike, some wonder what’s next
Trump hasn’t said whether Syria attack signals pivotal change
President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Syria has upended assumptions about U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, angering adversaries and raising hopes among allies that it signals a new willingness by the United States to deploy force to help its friends and punish its foes.
“People are jubilant in the Gulf right now,” said Mohammed Alyahya, a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council who is from Saudi Arabia. “What is clear is that Trump understands what American power can change and is willing to use it.”
The swift decision, by a president who had previously shown no interest in entering conflicts like Syria’s, set Mr. Trump apart from his predecessor’s far more cautious approach to the war.
The missile strikes on a Syrian airfield inflicted only minor damage and are unlikely to change the dynamics of a complex conflict that rages on local, regional and global levels.
Supporting the rebel groups opposed to Syrian President Bashar Assad are nations like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, who oppose Mr. Assad and his ally, Iran. The war has also entangled Russia and the U.S., and sent shock waves through Europe, which streams of Syrian refugees have fled to.
But Mr. Trump’s decision to launch quick strikes raised questions about whether it would give the involved powers pause as they pursue their objectives in a war that seems to have no end in sight.
Russia and Iran, who back the Syrian government, have responded angrily to the strikes, while allies who criticized President Barack Obama’s cautious approach have welcomed the change.
Some allies renewed their calls for a leadership change in Damascus, although officials in the Trump administration did not portray the strikes as the start of a broader campaign.
“A lot of this is an emotional response, but nothing about this strike suggests that the fundamentals of the Syria conflict have shifted,” said Noah Bonsey, a Syria analyst with the International Crisis Group.
As president, Mr. Obama sought to differentiate himself from his predecessor, George W. Bush, by limiting direct U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern wars. That angered some allies. Israel, Saudi Arabia and others accused him of overlooking aggressive moves by Iran in order to clinch a deal to limit its nuclear program. And Persian Gulf states and Turkey were irate when he did not enforce his own “red line” on the use of chemical weapons in Syria by using force against Mr. Assad after an attack in 2013 that killed more than 1,000 people.
Now, many who felt that Mr. Obama’s caution gave a green light to Mr. Assad’s brutality are lauding Mr. Trump for his forcible response to this week’s chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun.
“Everyone here in Khan Sheikhoun is happy. It is revenge for the families of the victims,” said Yasser Sarmini, a rebel fighter who was in the town at the time of the strike. “Trump is more frank and earnest than Obama. He promised and fulfilled his promise.”
In Turkey, which has long backed Syrian rebels in their effort to topple Mr. Assad, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told a rally that he supported the attack but wanted further action.
“I want to say we found this positive as a step taken against the war crimes the Assad regime has committed with chemical and conventional weapons,” Mr. Erdogan said. “I don’t reckon it is enough.” He called for the establishment of “safe zones” inside Syria, an idea rejected by the Obama administration.
In Israel, which has kept its distance from the war raging across its northern border, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the strikes sent a clear message against the spread of chemical weapons.
But Mr. Trump’s actions could complicate the pursuit of other U.S. priorities, including defeating the Islamic State group.
So far, Mr. Trump has not clarified whether Thursday’s strikes were a one-off response to the chemical attack or the start of more direct U.S. involvement. He had previously spoken of cooperating with Russia against the Islamic State.
Maha Yahya, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, said, “It’s too early to call this a game changer because we don’t know what the next step will be — or if there will be a next step.”