BEIRUT // Two and a half months into the presidency of Donald Trump, America’s position on Syria – if one even existed – remained unclear.
Much of what was known about Mr Trump’s plans came from the campaign trail: He ran on a non-intervention platform, making it clear that he did not want the United States involved in the complicated civil war between the Syrian government and those opposed to it. Certainly, Syrian president Bashar Al Assad was a “bad guy”, but he was not America’s problem. Instead, the US needed to focus on defeating ISIL and making America great again.
Back in 2013 – well before his presidential campaign – Mr Trump frequently took to Twitter to oppose potential US strikes against the Assad regime after the chemical sarin was used in an attack on Ghouta, a suburban area outside Damascus.
“AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE US. GETS NOTHING!” read one tweet from that September.
After Mr Trump took office in January, Washington stayed largely quiet on Syria. While the US played a key role in Syria peace talks under Barack Obama, under Mr Trump it has stayed away from them, relegating itself to the status of observer despite invitations to participate. In contrast to the Obama administration’s fierce criticism of Mr Al Assad and its pro-active role in peace efforts, the silence from Mr Trump’s White House was deafening. Mr Al Assad was also emboldened by the possibility of Washington working with Moscow against ISIL.
So it was quite a surprise on Tuesday when Sean Spicer, White House press secretary and the president’s mouthpiece, condemned Mr Al Assad for that day’s chemical weapons attack which killed more than 70 people in Idlib province and blamed it on former president Barack Obama’s “weakness” on the Syrian government.
“These heinous actions by the Bashar Al Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration’s weakness and irresolution. President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons, and then did nothing,” Mr Spicer said.
Even more perplexing was the slew of statements on Syria by Mr Spicer and other top Trump officials in the week before the chemical attack.
On Thursday last week, US secretary of state Rex Tillerson said Mr Al Assad’s fate would be determined by the Syrian people – an apparent reversal of the Obama administration’s line that the Syrian president must go. A day later, Mr Spicer said the US now had to accept the “political reality” – which presumably includes Mr Al Assad remaining in power.
Somewhat confusingly, however, the US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, on Sunday said Mr Al Assad remained “a priority” for Washington.
“Our goal is we want to bring Assad to justice,” she said. “We want him to pay for the crimes that he’s done.”
The contradictory nature of the statements suggests both a lack of communication among top US officials and perhaps a lack of clarity on Syria.
But perhaps more importantly, coupled with the US reaction to Tuesday’s chemical attack, it suggests Washington’s policy on Syria is malleable, and that it could be dragged further into the war after all.
Mr Spicer said the chemical attack “cannot be ignored by the civilised world”. Given the universal condemnation, and Mr Spicer’s claim that it was the Obama administration’s “weakness” over Syria that led to the attack, might president Trump decide military action – whether real or threatened – is the right policy now?
In an impassioned speech to the UN Security Council on Wednesday, Ms Haley suggested that this could indeed be the path that Washington takes.
“When the United Nations consistently fails in its duty to act collectively, there are times in the life of states that we are compelled to take our own action,” she said.
Later in the day Mr Trump himself seemed to suggest the same.
“My attitude towards Syria and Assad has changed very much,” he said in reference to Tuesday’s chemical attack. “These heinous actions by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated.”
Other US missions in the region could also overlap with Syria. Confronting Iran, as Mr Trump has promised, would also mean confronting Iran’s role in Syria. The much-vaunted safe zones Mr Trump has promised in Syria also cannot happen without US involvement.
And even if Mr Trump remains intransigent on Syria, his aides may not. On the campaign trail, vice president Mike Pence said he favoured punitive strikes against the Assad regime. And as Mr Trump acquaints himself with Arab leaders, he could be persuaded that the US must stop Iran, Russia and Turkey from dominating the peace process for their own gain.
Mr Trump and his team are discovering that the world still expects the US to be the global policeman – and that ultimately, Washington has little say in the matter.
jwood@thenational.ae
