The meaning of the US's intervention in Syria

The Syrian city of Idlib was recently subjected to an air strike with chemical weapons by the Assad regime. Hundreds of people, most of them children, lost their lives in this savage, barbaric attack. It is known that there are a great many wounded. This is of course not the first murder committed by the Assad regime. Behind the fact that the attack on Idlib by this administration, which has unfortunately turned beautiful Syria into a country remembered for massacres, has made such a great stir in international public opinion may be the realization that the regime still has chemical weapons in its hands.

Information that chemical weapons had been used was shared with the international public following autopsies carried out in Turkey. Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman and the US State Department also confirmed that chemical weapons were used in the attack.

Russia, which has maintained its support for the Assad regime since day one, tacitly acknowledged that chemical weapons were used in the attack.

In their statements, Russian officials said that accusations should not be made before it is established who used the chemical weapons and without a neutral investigation.

Almost the only country that flatly and unequivocally denied that chemical weapons were used in this despicable massacre was Iran.

Iran's Foreign Minister reacted sharply on Twitter to the US strike in Syria and rejected the claim that chemical weapons were used in Syria, likening what had happened to the weapons of mass destruction argument the US used before toppling Saddam's rule in Iraq, and implying that the US was preparing to invade Syria.

US President Trump had stated after the attack that his views of the Assad regime had changed and that he felt compelled to take responsibility.

After the military facility alleged to be the epicenter of the attack was hit by 59 Tomahawk missiles launched from US warships in the Eastern Mediterranean on the night linking Thursday to Friday, debates in the international community over how to resolve the Syrian crisis intensified anew.

The debates can be said to have roughly two aspects. The first is whether the human rights violations in Syria that worsen with each passing day and the crimes the Syrian regime commits against humanity can be brought to an end, and whether the international community can assume a role in this.

The second aspect of the matter is how Russia-US relations will take shape after the US strike on the military facility in Syria, and how the global and regional systems will be affected by it.

As will be recalled, this is not the first instance of the murderous regime in Syria with chemical weapons.

Earlier, on August 21, 2013, it had carried out an attack with sarin gas on opposition forces in Eastern Ghouta.

After the attack, then US President Obama said that it was unacceptable for them and for the security of the international community, and that the option of intervening in Syria was on the table. But with Russia's intervention,

President Obama abandoned the decision to intervene in Syria in return for the Syrian regime handing over the chemical weapons in its possession to a safe hand, and forgot the Eastern Ghouta attack.

Turkey at that time too had argued that such a method would not bring a solution to the problem; that a regime desperate enough to use chemical weapons against children could follow the same method again when pressed; and that such an agreement would wound the conscience of humanity.

The point reached, though we did not wish it, turned out to be the point Turkey foresaw. So what will happen from here on?

The US administration is focusing on options in which intervention and a safe zone are on the table.

The intervention option does not seem very feasible, since the decision-making mechanisms of the UN Security Council are deadlocked on Syria.

The safe zone option seems more in line with reality under the present circumstances.

However, it does not seem very possible for the safe zone arrangement to succeed with the US's current policies either.

First of all, the US administration must see that, just as Obama's tacit support for the Syrian regime destroyed US prestige, the appearance of being allied with terrorist organizations in the fight against DAESH is blowing away US influence and prestige in the region. It may be noticed that the appearance of the US standing in the same line as terrorist organizations such as the PYD-YPG is a policy at least as degrading as standing in the same line as the regime that massacres children in Idlib,

and if regional actors can be brought into the process, the safe zone arrangement can yield successful results.

Another step that needs to be taken is to make the principle of removing the murderous Assad administration from power a precondition.

It should by now have been understood that a healthy negotiation process cannot be conducted unless this becomes a topic closed to negotiation. A transitional government may be on the table, or different alternatives may be discussed under UN supervision. But

it must be seen that seating at the negotiating table the people and a ruler who ruthlessly uses chemical weapons against his own people and ruthlessly carries out massacres will yield no result.

It would be appropriate to determine policy on the principle that the Assad administration leaves Syria.

We said that the second dimension of the debates is how US-Russia relations will take shape.

Some researchers had said that, in the heat of the moment right after the US strike on Syria, relations could become strained and even turn into a crisis.

But in the following hours it emerged that the US had informed Russia before the attack.

It was also reported in the international agencies that regime sources said the base had been evacuated just before the attack took place. At this point it may be thought that Russia informed the Assad regime.

The main point to note is that the US has once again carried out an operation of which everyone was informed in advance.

In other words, in a way it could be said that the US administration carried out an operation on an empty base and pelted mountains and rocks with a rain of missiles.

It is clear that such an operation can be neither a solution to the crisis in Syria nor a cause of a crisis in US-Russia relations.

Whether the US and Russia are engaged in a new mock fight, whether Trump is different from the Obama administration, and moreover whether the US's red line has really been crossed will be shown by time.