Statements made by the United States shows not only the confusion of thought in Washington, but his complete inability to articulate their Syrian policy.
The decision of President Trump launch a missile attack on the air base "Shayrat" in Syria in response to the alleged use of sarin the Syrian government in Idlib province showed the inconsistency of US policy with respect to the Syrian conflict, which causes some concern, writes Mohammed Ayub in an article for The Strategist.
Trump's move was more motivated by impulse and emotion than by a careful analysis of the consequences, especially for Russian-American relations. It seems that the president was more interested in making it clear that he had more determination in the Syrian question than his predecessor. Most importantly, this step clearly demonstrates the contradictory goals pursued by the Trump administration regarding the civil war in Syria. The discrepancy between these goals is a sure signal that US policy toward Syria will inevitably lead Washington to failure.
Most clearly these objectives outlined Nikki Heyli, US ambassador to the UN. It is increasingly becoming the main channel position on Syria Trump administration issues. According to her, Washington's priority is to "destroy" the Islamic state "(an organization whose activity is banned in Russia), the displacement of Iranian influence in Syria and the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria." Haley also noted, "there is no such development of events in which a political solution [Syrian conflict] will be with Assad led regime."
Statement by US Ambassador to the UN was a notable failure on its previous positions, voiced a few days earlier, when Haley played down the importance of the removal of Assad from power for US policy toward Syria. The United States is no longer a priority for the removal of Assad, said she 30 of March.
Such a radical change of policy priorities, and even carried out in response to the heinous act, shows no adequate planning in the formation of American priorities in Syria, but rather shows the volatility of the administration, whose position is easily changed with the television coverage of atrocities.
Three goals set Hayley contradict each other in many aspects. To begin with, the United States does not have sufficient military forces to be deployed in Syria and around it, which would be able to ensure the defeat LIH (organization, whose activities are prohibited in the Russian Federation), and the overthrow of the "regime" of Assad. Haley's comments also seem to contradict the statement of Rex Tillerson secretary of state that Washington's priority is to defeat LIH (organization, whose activities are prohibited in the Russian Federation).
Tillerson statement accurately reflects the conviction of the president of Trump that he believes LIH (organization, whose activities are prohibited in the Russian Federation), the main enemy of the US and that his main foreign policy objective is to destroy the radicals. Nevertheless, the United States faced difficulties in the destruction of LIH (organization, whose activities are prohibited in the Russian Federation) and to a large extent depend on allies such as Turkey and the Syrian Kurds, who consider each other as enemies.
It is obvious that the United States needs and Assad, and even more - to defeat Russia LIH (organization, whose activities are prohibited in the Russian Federation). Russia better understand the threat of Sunni radicalism than the United States, given the terrorist attacks perpetrated inspired LIH (organization, whose activities are prohibited in the Russian Federation) terrorists from among Russian citizens. The recent explosion in St. Petersburg is just one example of a serious challenge to Russia on the part of local extremists.
Thus, there is an almost perfect coincidence of interests between Moscow and Washington in relation to the threat from the terrorist group "Islamic State" (an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation). However, since Russia is the main external supporter of Assad and actively participates in the civil war on the side of the "regime", by launching a missile attack on the Assad base, Washington may eventually alienate Moscow to such an extent that coordination between the US and Russia in the fight against IGIL an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation) will become impossible.
Iran is another major supporter of the Assad regime. Tehran sent its own troops to protect the government of Syria. Protect this government and the Iranian-backed members of the Shiite group Hezbollah. The Islamic Republic is also the closest ally of the Shiite Iraqi regime, which is fighting militants on its territory. Iran actively opposes IGIL (an organization whose activities are banned in Russia) for religious and geopolitical reasons. Thus, the ideology of the IGIL grouping (an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation), which considers the Shiites not just heretics but something outside the Islamic world, is an offshoot of Saudi Wahhabism, and Saudi Arabia, in turn, is the main geopolitical rival Iran in the Middle East. Therefore, Iran's motives in confronting IGIL (an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation) are more significant in comparison with the motives of both Russia and the United States. Thus, Iran is a logical ally of the US in the fight against IGIL (an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation).
Therefore, Haley's simultaneous statements about the need to oust Iranian influence from Syria and strike a blow at IGIL (the organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation), in fact, contradict each other. In fact, a sober assessment of US goals in the Middle East, especially against Syria, would demonstrate that Iran is Washington's potential ally in the region, and not its inveterate enemy. An attempt to put it on par with IGIL (an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation) shows not only the confusion of thinking, but also the total inability of Washington to articulate its Syrian policy.
Such a scenario does not bode well for the future policy of the White House in the Middle East. If victory over LIH (organization, whose activities are prohibited in the Russian Federation) is a priority for Washington, he must learn to live with Assad, on the one hand, and to develop relations with Iran, on the other.