U.S. has recently launched missiles against select locations in the Syrian capital Damascus – which risks escalating the conflict.
Significantly, this was in response to the alleged chemical attack by the Syrian government forces against its own citizens in rebel held territories.
What was the attack about?
U.S. president Donald Trump had threatened the Syrian government with the threat of military action if chemical weapons were used.
In mid 2017, when there was a suspected chemical attack in Idlib province, the U.S. had fired 59 cruise missiles at a government airbase.
Despite this, the government forces allegedly carried out another chemical attack recently on rebel control “Douma region” near Damascus.
Consequently, the US in alliance with UK and France decided to launch an attack against selected targets to punish the Assad regime.
Over 100 missiles were fired at three regime facilities to completely destroy Syria’s chemical weapons program.
After the attack, the US has stated that its mission was a success and that it doesn’t intend to follow up with further attacks.
Was the protocol followed?
While the use of chemical agents against civilians deserves harsh punishment, the manner in which the U.S. and its allies have acted raises serious questions.
Significantly, Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) hasn’t even begun its investigation on the alleged chemical attack on Douma.
The proper procedure would’ve been to wait for OPCW (inter-governmental watchdog) to probe the veracity of the alleged chemical attack.
The US and its allies should’ve then approached the UN Security Council with requisite evidence and sought an approval for an assault.
But contrarily, the US alliance seems to have acted merely on the basis of inputs from their intelligence agencies (which is a breach international law).
What are the risks?
While Mr. Trump has already trumpeted that the US mission was a success, the statement seems to lack solid grounds.
Notably, the previous US attack was also intended to dissuade Syria from using chemical weapons – which clearly has failed.
Hence, if the Syrian regime was to resort to another chemical misadventure, the US would be forced to intervene again with more might.
Such actions might drive the US more into the viscous Syrian entanglement and increase the risk of a direct conflict with Russian troops there.
In fact, Russia has been strongly and consistently positioning itself behind Assad and the Syrian regime, which is a major worry.
What is the way ahead?
The war is already 7 years old and more than 4 lakh people have died.
There is no dispute that Mr. Assad is presiding over a monstrous military machine that has used brute force against his own people.
But the Syrian maze is so complex that a sudden collapse of the regime would push the country into further chaos and make things worse.
Significantly, more bombs and missiles would put the millions who currently live in the relatively stable regime held territories under risk.
It is high-time that the West shifts from unilateral and coercive military action to aggressive multilateral diplomacy to end the unfolding misery.
The only way out is for Russia and US to get to the negotiating tables for immediately stopping the violence and negotiating a long-lasting peace.
