The attack on Syria wasn't impressive enough!

Ruins at Syria's Scientific Research Center after the attack on April 13. Photo: Reuters

The Trump administration made it clear that the attacks on Syria's chemical weapons program had one purpose: to prevent Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from using these weapons in the future, as he had recently done in Douma, according to allegations from the U.S. and other countries.

The attack on the night of April 13th took place one year after the US attacked the Assad regime in a similar manner, when Damascus was accused of carrying out a deadly chemical attack in the town of Khan Shaykhun. However, this time the US was not acting alone, but together with its allies France and the UK, carried out more attacks than a year earlier.

Putin, not the US attacks, had the most influence on Syria's use of chemical weapons. (Photo: dpa)

When the incident occurred, many observers suggested that this military move leaned more towards a limited response than a larger-scale retaliation as Trump had suggested. This led to the question: Did Assad receive the message and stop using chemical weapons?

“I’m not very impressed,” said Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria who also served as Washington’s representative to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. He added, “We’re basically repeating exactly what we did a year ago on a slightly larger scale. But it won’t do any lasting damage to Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons in the future or anything like that.”

“Whether this will stop him – that remains an open question,” commented Philip Breedlov, a former NATO and US military commander in Europe. “Remember that this Syrian leader enjoys the support and facilitation, as well as political backing, from Russia and Iran.”

The U.S. was right to seek allies in the attack, but having two allies is perhaps not a strong signal. Photo: AP

Mona Yacoubian, a Syria scholar at the U.S. Institute for Peace, argues that while it's difficult to predict Assad's reaction, changing his calculations would require actions that threaten the very foundations of his regime. "In that sense, these attacks are probably too limited to achieve that."

All three experts emphasized the influence of Russia and Iran on the Assad regime.

Breedlove said, “Remember that Assad is not capable of handling everything that’s going on around him. He’s being facilitated, empowered, and encouraged by Russia and Iran.”

"If they told him not to do this anymore, he probably wouldn't continue," Crocker said, agreeing and alluding to the possibility that Moscow and Tehran could monitor Assad's use of chemical weapons.

“I’ll give you a specific example: Iran,” the former U.S. diplomat said, adding, “I can’t believe the Iranians are happy about this. They suffered a lot from the chemical attacks in the Iran-Iraq war. They know what it’s like.”

According to Yacoubian, despite its somewhat belligerent tone, Russia may have no interest in escalating the conflict with the US over Syria and may be inclined to limit Assad's use of chemical weapons for its own reasons.

Mattis is one of the few members of the US cabinet who has not experienced the wrath of President Trump. Photo: Reuters

When asked whether the U.S. response could be seen as a sign that the Pentagon under Defense Secretary James Mattis favored a cautious and coordinated response, rather than the White House's initial call for swift action, the experts all declined to interpret that, at least for now.

Crocker argued that the nature and execution of the attack demonstrate that Matttis currently holds a crucial role. “It’s quite clear that he can keep the president calm at this time. Not many people can do that,” the expert said.

Former NATO commander Breedlove, who has consistently refused to get involved in political activities, praised Mattis and General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States.

“What we witnessed here was two excellent military leaders giving advice to their boss – their commander-in-chief, and the commander-in-chief made a decision based on that advice. Frankly, I think they acted correctly.”

Experts are wondering whether Trump will continue to heed the advice of his military leaders, especially now that hardline John Bolton has become national security adviser.

Many people wonder what role Bolton will play in shaping U.S. foreign policy. Photo: Imago

Equally important is whether Trump's newly formed team, including Pentagon chief Mattis, Bolton, and Mike Pompeo—soon to be confirmed as the new Secretary of State—can address what former US Ambassador to Syria Crocker called the fundamental problem facing the administration: "There is still no strategy for Syria in Washington."