President sends clear message that war crimes will not be tolerated

Donald Trump’s decision to launch missile strikes against Bashar al-Assad’s regime is a gamechanger in the West’s approach to Syria’s civil war. In the 70 or so days since Mr Trump took office, there has been a general tendency to dismiss America’s 45th president as a bumbling buffoon who had no understanding of the intricacies of world affairs. No longer.

At a stroke, Mr Trump’s decisive response to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against unarmed civilians in the northern province of Idlib earlier this week makes a mockery of Barack Obama’s endless prevarication over the Syrian issue.

Because of Mr Obama’s refusal in 2013 to follow up on his threat to bomb the Assad regime if it breached his “red line” about using chemical weapons against rebels, Assad and his Russian backers have grown used to defying the will of the international community, safe in the knowledge they would never be held to account for their actions. Now, thanks to Mr Trump, they have been made to understand that, when it comes to committing war crimes, actions will have serious consequences.

It also sends a strong signal to Western foes such as Assad and Vladimir Putin’s Russia that the US and its allies are no longer going to take a back seat when confronted by wanton acts of aggression, whether in Syria or other parts of the globe.

The Russians can bleat as much as they like about Washington committing violations against Syria’s sovereign integrity. But the US was given no other choice when the Russians made it clear they would veto any UN Security Council resolution that condemned Damascus for the Idlib attack. Moreover, by allowing the Assad regime to launch the attack in the first place – the Russians control the air space in Idlib – Moscow has no moral authority whatsoever to criticise others who intervene to save the lives of innocent civilians. Nor should the world forget that the Russians have committed numerous war crimes of their own during their brutal assault on the rebel stronghold of Aleppo at the end of last year.

Mr Putin is certainly the biggest loser from Mr Trump’s decision to destroy the Assad regime airbase that US intelligence officials believe was used to launch the Idlib raid. Until Mr Trump’s intervention, the Russian leader could boast that Russia’s military intervention in Syria had been a great success, and Moscow’s support vital to defending the Assad regime.

Now that claim has a hollow ring, and Mr Putin must come to terms with the fact that Russia is no match for the might of the US military. Mr Trump’s dramatic intervention should also serve as a wake-up call to the British Government, which still clings to the mind-set that the age of military intervention is over, and Britain’s Armed Forces should think more about peacekeeping than war-fighting.

Although, on this occasion, it appears that no request was made to London to support the American action – Mr Trump clearly wanted to claim all the credit – Downing Street needs to make sure that, if such a request were forthcoming in future, Britain’s military would be in a position to make a valid contribution.

The Government cannot afford a rerun of the wretched situation during the military campaign in 2011 to overthrow Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, when drastic cuts to the defence budget meant the Royal Navy ran out of cruise missiles within days of the commencement of hostilities, and had to beg Washington for replacements. It is unlikely that the Trump administration would take kindly if the British military suffered a similar embarrassment in future.