Taking overdue action against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s chemical brutality, President Trump has put the dictator on notice: if Assad employs chemical weapons again, similar reprisals may follow.
Still, I suspect that Putin will now encourage Assad to do just that.
At a basic level, Trump’s strikes have challenged Putin’s strategic initiative. As his puppet, Assad’s credibility affects Putin’s credibility. As such, unless and until he decides to abandon Assad for a compromise replacement, Putin will require Assad to act aggressively. After all, Putin needs credibility to sustain his broader strategy: displacing the United States from the region (which would be disastrous for U.S. security).
But to do that, Putin must do to Trump what he did to Obama. Namely, make the U.S. president’s words inconsistent with his actions. Perception of power has a special importance in the Middle East, where existential fear and politicized-sectarianism loom large. And by having Assad use chemical weapons again, Putin would hope to send two messages to Trump. First, that Assad will never be displaced. Second, that Russia can tolerate escalation. Putin wants Trump to fear that Russia might retaliate militarily if he keeps pressuring Assad.
To counter Putin, Trump will have to respond forcefully to any follow chemical attacks.
Here’s how he could do so.
First, as I noted last week, Trump could increase U.S. support for rebel groups in Syria’s Idlib governate. Those rebels are the proximate threat to Assad’s regime. If Trump supports them, these groups will equalize the power of Salafi-Jihadist rebels (such as al-Qaeda) which currently dominate Idlib’s resistance, while also upping the pressure on Assad. In short, Trump can hurt two American enemies with one logistics effort.
Second, Trump could select a military option stronger than last week’s option. Those strikes, conducted via cruise missiles from U.S. Navy vessels, were inherently limited in effect. The airfield targeted has been degraded but remains operational. Responding to a second attack, however, Trump could order strikes to de-operationalize any air bases, squadrons, and enabling forces responsible. Doing so might involve some U.S. Air Force elements, but it would impose a far more serious price tag on Assad’s malevolence. Moreover, it would directly deter the military officers enacting Assad’s gassing. The point here is simple: if chemical actors believe they are at significant risk of U.S. targeting, they will be more inclined to pursue other activities.
If another attack occurs, Trump should also target Syrian military command and control facilities. If those capabilities suffer, Assad’s military will be less able to carry out his will. At that point, Syrian regime moderates (critical to any effective political transition) will realize – alongside Putin – that their use of chemical weapons is an inherent liability. As an extension, those officers will be more predisposed to remove Assad from power. Again, Putin also knows this. And that matters because if Assad is pushed out and Putin lacks influence over his replacement, Putin’s strategy ain’t worth… much.
Of course, in the event of another attack, Trump should also increase the diplomatic and economic pressure on Putin. This week, Italy blocked a British-sponsored plan for tougher sanctions on Russia. But if another attack comes, the E.U. will gravitate towards renewed action. Further assisting Trump’s angle here is his tough stance on Iran (and the change it represents from Obama). Trump is very popular with the Sunni monarchies. The Saudis, in particular, might be inclined to artificially deflate oil prices to pressure Putin’s oil-export dependent economy.
Ultimately, U.S. strategy in Syria must situate on two foundations: the timely replacement of Assad from power (the Islamic State won’t be defeated until that occurs), and deterrence against the use of chemical weapons. If Trump holds firm to both, Putin will compromise. Putin will do so because, in the end, he is a realist.
Putin knows he can’t corral a realist U.S. president determined to lead. And that leaves him with one choice: serious diplomacy.
Tom Rogan (@TomRtweets) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a foreign policy columnist for National Review, a domestic policy columnist for Opportunity Lives, a former panelist on The McLaughlin Group and a senior fellow at the Steamboat Institute.
If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.
