ANALYSIS
“Although there were certainly policy arguments for and against U.S. intervention in Syria, there was a compelling U.S. national interest in preventing and deterring Syria, as well as other governments, from using chemical weapons against its citizens,” said CFR’s John B. Bellinger III.
“[The strikes] were not intended to unseat the Assad regime or directly protect the Syrian people. Although President Trump expressed his disappointment with Russian and Iranian support for Assad, the strikes took care not to engage them directly,” CFR President Richard N. Haass writes for Axios.
“[The strikes carried] a hidden message to the Russians that despite your existence and massive victories on the ground, we remain part of the game and we will always be part of the political solution,” Nawar Oliver said in an interview with Syria Deeply.
|