In his Wednesday morning Twitter taunt aimed at Moscow, President Trump appeared to erase any doubt about whether he will make good on his threat to bomb Syria and punish Bashar Assad for a suspected chemical attack on his own people.
In response to threats from Russian diplomats and lawmakers that Russia will shoot down any U.S. missiles, Trump tweeted, “Get ready Russia, because they will be coming.”
To back down now would be a major hit to Trump’s credibility, and subject him to the same ridicule heaped on Barack Obama in 2013 for failing to follow through on his “red line,” declaration.
But despite the brash display of Trumpian bravado, the president finds himself in a similar predicament as Obama, who was ultimately stymied by reluctant allies, an uncooperative Congress, and in the end outmaneuvered by Vladimir Putin.
Like Trump, Obama sought to conduct a punitive strike in conjunction with Great Britain. But in 2013, the British Parliament, still smarting from the Iraq War, rejected the U.S. request to join forces, dealing a setback to Prime Minister David Cameron.
And this time around there is again grumbling in Parliament, particularly among liberal politicians who fear calling Putin’s bluff could lead to wider war.
“We don’t want bombardment which leads to escalation and a hot war between the U.S. and Russia over the skies of Syria,” Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn told the BBC, adding that Parliament “should always be given a say on any military action.”
The BBC quotes sources who say Prime Minister Theresa May fears possible political fallout for taking military action without approval from Parliament, which doesn’t return from its Easter break until next Monday.
The U.S. has already taken longer to respond to this year’s attack than it did this time last year, when Trump ordered the missile strike two days after a Syrian warplane dropped chemicals on civilians in Khan Sheikhoun.
The delay is giving Syria plenty of time to hunker down and move its planes and helicopters at Russian military bases, where a U.S. strike would be more provocative.
And a Twitter account that tracks satellite imagery also noted that Russian ships that are normally pierside at Tartus, Russia’s naval base in Syria, have put to sea.
ISI reveals: Disappearance of most of the #Russian #Naval Forces from #Tartus Port, #Syria.
Those missing naval vessels have now been deployed at sea due to possible near-future #strikes. Only one #kilo class submarine remained.#russiannavy #Syriastrikes #foxnews #kilo pic.twitter.com/guRA9w0qqt— imagesatintl (@imagesatint) April 11, 2018
All this extra time is giving Moscow more room to sow doubt about what happened, and the wisdom of a military strike.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said a U.S. strike could endanger inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons.
“Are the OPCW inspectors aware that smart missiles are about to destroy all evidence of the chemical weapons use on the ground? Or is that the actual plan, to cover up all evidence of this fabricated attack with smart missile strikes, so that international inspectors had no evidence to look for?” Zakharova said in response to Trump’s tweet.
At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis could not say definitively who was to blame for the attack.
“We’re still assessing the intelligence, ourselves and our allies are working on this,” he told reporters at a photo op with the visiting Dutch minister of defense, but added, “We stand ready to provide military options if they’re appropriate.”
But by trumpeting the plan to attack, the president has given up the element of surprise, and made the job of Pentagon planners immensely more difficult.
“He’s getting ahead of his own Pentagon by forcing their hands,” said former Pentagon and State Department spokesman John Kirby, now a paid CNN contributor.
“If we conduct this strike with allies, he’s likely getting ahead of their planning processes as well,” Kirby said Wednesday on CNN. “It’s reprehensible and irresponsible on many levels.”
When Obama was rebuffed by Britain in 2013, he sought and failed to get authorization from Congress.
Trump’s inclination to hit Syria with a punitive strikes seems to have more congressional support, but there is also an uneasiness among some lawmakers about Trump’s boasting and questions about whether a quick “feel-good” strike will have any real effect on Assad and his primary backer, Putin.
“Rather than a military strike, let’s find out what happened. Let’s really expose for the public the multiple chemical attacks. And really start fingering Assad and putting pressure on Russia with their complicity at propping up this heinous regime,” said Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., a member of the Foreign Relations Committee
“The Organization for Prohibition Chemical Weapons hopefully will be on the ground,” Johnson said on CNN. “We need to verify exactly what happened here. Who, as best we can determine, caused this.”
Both Britain and France have voiced strong support for working with the U.S. to hold Syria accountable for violating international prohibitions on the use of chemical weapons.
But so far neither has committed publicly to join the U.S. in military action.
