Analysis: A rupture to nobody’s advantage

The use of chemical weapons against the civil population in Syria as exerted by the army of sitting Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, as well as the U.S. bombing of a Syrian military base, has given rise to opposite responses from the international community.

Condemn to the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict has been universal, mainly for the horror triggered by the images of tens of children killed, while the U.S. attack was largely perceived as a compelling response to the brutality of Al-Assad’s regime, as well as a deterrent against the use of chemical weapons.

Israel, Turkey and U.S. allies in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates expressed their immediate support to the U.S. attack, unlike Russia and Iran.

President Vladimir Putin called for an extraordinary emergency meeting with the Security Council to denounce the U.S. attack as an act of aggression against a sovereign country and a clear violation of International Law that took place “without a justified reason. ”

While some have pointed at a diplomatic rupture between Washington and Moscow, something very far from the truth, one needs only to remember the missile crisis of 1962 to understand the Kremlin’s restraint in a context that can potentially alter its strategic interests.

Also, we cannot ignore the possibility that the U.S. government had warned the Kremlin of the attack to the Syrian airbase before it ever took place. The attack coincides just after Steve Bannon’s dismissal from the U.S. National Security Council and during the official visit of the Chinese president, Xi Jingping, to Mar-a-Lago. Jingping was given only but two choices after the U.S. attack: to condemn it or to support it while still in the U.S.

We can assume that a secret arrangement might have taken place between the U.S. and Russia to minimize the consequences of the U.S. bombing in Syria as much as possible, for the sake of the U.S.-Russia relations

President Obama’s stand towards the Syrian conflict contributed to Putin’s empowerment as attested by the annexation of Crimea and the support of secessionist forces from east Ukraine.

While Trump seems to be determined to change the course of the Syrian conflict, which will inevitably result in a change of regime in Syria, Russia warns that it is the only country capable of serving as a positive influence for Al-Assad’s removal in a diplomatic move that proves useful for all parties, without losing face with its Arab ally.

In the context of the Syrian conflict, the Putin-Trump relationship could be key to reach peace talks and to join both Russian and U.S. efforts against the Islamic State (ISIS).

*Héctor Cárdenas Rodríguez is a Non-resident ambassador to Syria and former ambassador to Egypt

bg