Dear Deeply Readers,

Welcome to the archives of Syria Deeply. While we paused regular publication of the site on May 15, 2018, and transitioned some of our coverage to Peacebuilding Deeply, we are happy to serve as an ongoing public resource on the Syrian conflict. We hope you’ll enjoy the reporting and analysis that was produced by our dedicated community of editors contributors.

We continue to produce events and special projects while we explore where the on-site journalism goes next. If you’d like to reach us with feedback or ideas for collaboration you can do so at [email protected].

Is the Assad Regime Feeling the Pressure of a Potential Strike?

Over the weekend, the U.S. moved one of its Mediterranean warships closer to the Syrian coastline as administration sources said President Barack Obama was seriously considering a strike on regime targets.

Written by Alison Tahmizian Meuse Published on Read time Approx. 3 minutes

The move comes after international condemnation of last week’s chemical weapons attack on east Damascus, which left as many as 1,300 dead and may have crossed Obama’s “red line.” French and British politicians also called for a proportional response.

On Sunday, Bashar al-Assad agreed to let U.N. inspectors visit the site of the attack, an act the organization said came “too late” but might be a clue that Assad is feeling the pressure of a potential U.S. strike. We asked three experts in the region to weigh in.

Salman Shaikh, director of the Brookings Doha Center:

The regime feels for the first time that there’s a seriousness from the United States, which is encouraging the Europeans who have been more hawkish in the past. That’s why the regime let inspectors into eastern Ghouta today. They had advice from their lead backers Iran and Russia.

The government keeps changing its stories. First it denied a chemical attack happened. Then it started pointing the finger. You had Deputy Foreign Minister (Faisal) Makdad saying these are all fabrications; on the same day there was an interview with President Assad saying something else, blaming the rebels for using chemical weapons. The regime is certainly rattled by the response and probably thought it could get away with the attack.

All they can do is cooperate and destroy the evidence, and paint another narrative. There is a whole effort to try and muddy the waters and guide the media and diplomatic narrative. But it doesn’t seem to be deterring the rising tone and words of key Western and regional powers.

I think there is a 50/50 chance [of a strike]. The investigators only have a limited mandate to see whether [chemical] weapons were used or not. It’s pretty clear they have been. Will there be a United Nations Security Council discussion? This will take some time. The key E.U. powers are on a different timeline. I would not rule out some sort of a military response in the next week.

[If there isn’t a strike] the regime will think it literally got away with murder. The U.S. will send a very confused signal: that the international community doesn’t have the resolve for this fight, and this would be a very bad message for a situation inside Syria as the conflict becomes bloodier, the regime fights for its life, and the region continues to feel the effects of that, increasingly in Lebanon and Iraq.

But military action should not just be about doing something. It has to be part of a broader strategy that takes into account the way the situation has unfolded in Syria, where the regime feels it can use chemical weapons against its own people. We’ve taken for granted that the regime can use Scud missiles, but red lines should mean protection of civilians.

Nikolaos van Dam, former Dutch ambassador to Iraq and Egypt, and author of The Struggle for Power in Syria:

At first the international community wanted inspections, and now that they are allowed, they all of a sudden say that it is too late. [Assad] is of course very concerned. Anyone expecting a wide-scale attack on one’s armed forces would be very worried.

The Americans have talked themselves into [military action], and now they are [being] encouraged by the French and the British. There have been red lines laid down, and if you don’t use force – even if the American people are not in favor of it – the credibility of the president of the U.S. is at stake.

For the regime, the most important thing now is to keep the upper hand in the internal war. The regime can’t really avert an attack. The anti-aircraft [weapons] will be on standby. But they cannot do anything else.

Riad Kahwaji, chief executive of the Dubai-based think tank INEGMA:

Allowing the U.N. team to go in is an indication that they are taking [the threat of military attack] seriously. This does not mean they will not play tricks and try to undermine the work of the inspectors.

[To avert a military strike], they will make threats of [it causing] a regionally destructive war. They are trying to scare the international community into doing nothing. I don’t think it will work this time.

On the military front, there is not much they can do. Their military capability is obsolete compared to Western powers. They can only fire Scud missiles on neighboring countries (Jordan, Turkey and Israel), which will get them in bigger trouble.

They are out of friends now, especially after the chemical weapons attack. Russia will handle the PR whenever the regime is ready to step down and seek an exit.

The West’s credibility is at stake here. If they don’t take any action, Assad will become more bold and will carry out more atrocities. It is very hard for the West not to react.

Military action can only be averted by the regime stepping down, which is impossible at this stage. Conflict is unavoidable.

Suggest your story or issue.

Send

Share Your Story.

Have a story idea? Interested in adding your voice to our growing community?

Learn more