The Syrian conflict today seems to be hurtling towards an apocalyptic end. The war that has engaged multiple parties with different stakes has been a bloody conflict in which the civilians have come off as the worst affected party. The uprising against the Assad regime which began in 2011 has created new landmarks in the field of human massacre and brutality. Each civilian uprising and revolt has been countered with increasingly vicious clampdowns by the government’s armed forces. The entry of ISIS in 2013 gave a new angle to the conflict, which further divided the civilians along sectarian and political lines. This new entrant and terror outfit pulled in the U.S.A and other major powers in the fight against Sunni radicalisation and extremism. While the Assad regime fought against ISIS it also maintained its focus on exterminating all other factions of rebels and opposition parties. The steady fight by the joint forces – government forces, foreign powers and the rebels against the ISIS proved victorious. Once, the ISIS problem was dealt with the Assad regime reverted with full gusto to attacking its home based rebel factions. The result of this crackdown was the death, displacement of civilians and the biggest refugee crisis of the current times.
Chemical warfare is considered to render fewer casualties and to be of less utility than traditional warfare techniques like bombing and gunning. Therefore, governments who wish to send a harsh warning to the rebels and invoke terror in its citizens employ such weapons. The issue in Syria has been the rampant overuse of chemical weapons, identified to be akin to agent Sarin – a nerve disabling chemical, which is purportedly being manufactured by the government. This was overlooked by the international community for a long time, including by the former President of United States – Barack Obama, despite of conclusive findings by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical warfare (OPCW) of the use of such weapons in Syria. This inability to act on behalf of the west only spurred Assad’s usage of the weapons. The Russian alliance only increased his political clout. Thus, Assad began to slowly emerge as a new authority that questioned the power of the west. The waning power of the west has sought to reinforce itself by taking a tougher stance on the Syrian crisis, especially after the heralding of President Donald Trump. Trump, who initially extended diplomatic ties with Assad, did not take long to take military action on the Syrian government. He did what he believed Obama did not do and to. Along with France, in late 2017 Trump conducted air strikes on Shayrat base – believed to be the chemical weapon manufacturing hub of the government. The United States conducted a second strike this April the 13th again. The suspect this time was unfounded, as the OPCW had not yet established the presence of chemical warfare in the attacked region (Douma).
The U.S.A offence has several implications; firstly this is its second attack in less than a year on Syria that has not resulted in any visible improvements for the crisis. The question that arises then is that, Is the U.S threat a serious deterrence to Bashar Al Assad who appears to continue his cleansing operation oblivious to international action. The second implication is the question of Russia, as U.S.A strikes Syria it once again finds itself opposing Russia, will this entail a US – Russia confrontation and what does that spell out for an international community that is now well advanced from the cold war days. Thirdly, the stance taken by Donald Trump is not yet proved to have achieved the desired result. If anything it has added more complications to the already war torn state. The U.S presence right now looks less reconciliatory and more as a projection of a powerful third party who wants to prove their power by wrecking more destruction than both the domestic parties already have.
Of course USA is not only acting just for humanitarian causes indeed it has its own interests like showcasing its power.