Meddling in the Middle East could end in tears

Surely Peter Hitchens and I cannot be the only ones who believe that Russia’s Vladimir Putin is the one in the right and that we and America are very wrong in our interfering in the Middle East? Whatever people think of the Putin-backed President Assad, is he not on the side of Syria against IS and Al Qaeda?

These groups are masquerading as rebels, and undoubtedly they are manufacturing the current situation to put Assad in a bad light. They are also soaking up the publicity from the West. The UK and United States are helping out the villains unknowingly. John Beevis, Weybourne, Norfolk Reading the calls for Donald Trump to stay out of Syria, or for the West to stay out of any distant conflict, brings to mind the words of Edmund Burke: ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’

Many of us wouldn’t rush to describe Trump as a good man, and ill-conceived interventions can be calamity, as they were in Iraq and Vietnam.

But the West’s inaction in Rwanda in 1994 allowed a genocide to be perpetrated, while intervention in the form of Nato air strikes in 1994-95 did bring the Bosnian Serbs to the negotiating table, leading to the end of the Bosnian war.

Without the actions of the UN and Nato, would the world have witnessed many more massacres like Srebrenica? Interventions and air strikes can work in the long run to bring peace. Stephen Carleton, London Our experts say that production, handling and delivery of sarin gas requires sophisticated knowledge and expertise, which they believe by definition rules anti-Assad forces out of the reckoning for the attack that prompted America’s cruise-missile response. It is said that it was the Syrian state forces who used it.

But sarin gas was used to kill 12 people and injure 50 others during an attack on the Tokyo subway. That was in 1995, and one would assume that in the 22 years since, knowledge of this terrible gas would have increased. Gerry Doyle, Liverpool I applaud Sir Christopher Meyer’s stance last week on America’s show of strength over the use of chemical weapons that killed innocent civilians in Syria. Trump’s swift response tells the world that the use of such weapons will not be tolerated. The article refers to the motives behind Trump’s action, whether for his own domestic political gain or increased geopolitical influence in the Middle East. Whatever his reasons, the US has now set a global standard for the response to mass murder.

Lorenzo Wareham, Newcastle It is naive to believe that none of the other parties involved here is capable of killing civilians with chemical weapons. Stephen Birds, Bury I voted for the Conservatives but regret it every time I see or hear Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. Until he offers facts that prove President Assad’s guilt over the chemical attack, then his views are as legitimate as Tony Blair’s ‘weapons of mass destruction in Iraq’ claim. Edward Mitchell, Bridgwater