Alwaght– Before the recent US missile strikes against Syria’s Shayrat airbase, the new administration’s foreign policy team frequently insisted that the new White House leadership’s strategy will focus on fighting the ISIS terrorist group and Washington no longer pursued the scenario of removing the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power.
However, the missile attack and the American officials’ anti-Syrian stances that followed the operation made it clear that the new government’s approaches in dealing with the Syrian crisis is not that much different from its predecessor which put high on its agenda working to topple the Syrian leader.
The analysts suggest that Washington has used Trump government’s anti-ISIS stances as an instrument to win for the US a leading position on the regional and global stages, something that can pave the way for Washington to expand intervention in West Asia region militarily. They argue that Washington’s policy to overthrow the current Syrian government and so get Damascus off the Iran-led Axis of Resistance remains unchanged even at the time of the new administration in office.
But Americans’ indecision over a certain approach towards the Syrian crisis’s developments and the relevant actors affecting the course of war like Russia should be attributed to their paradoxical analyses about the ongoing developments of the Syrian war scene.
The Americans sometimes based on their analyses decide that Damascus is in a weak position and this drives them to directly take military action against Syria so that in case of any unexpected changes in the war-ravaged country, they promote the development as an outcome of their direct measures. Still at other times, when the American analyses decide that Syria leadership is consistent and strong and so military measures cannot impair the president Assad and his allied Resistance camp, they soften their tone against Damascus and offer return to political settlement.
Indeed, different conception of the Syrian battleground conditions directs the US stances whether towards a tough action or a relaxed posture. It can be noted that Washington is following a flexible policy in dealing with the Syrian crisis. Such an approach gives it the potentials to shift ways whenever the need arises. The same middle pathway is used to deal with the Russian presence in the Syrian crisis. Washington officials sometimes talk about cooperation with Moscow to find a solution for the Syrian crisis and sometimes warn of direct confrontation with Moscow over Syria.
The conclusion can be that the American policy still chases Assad’s removal, but the tactics for its materialization are based on exact analyzing of the conflict scene and deciding on flexibly military or political responses. Such attitude makes the world hear contradictory stances by the Americans on the six-year-old crisis.
The same approach is also adopted towards North Korea. Washington considers a line of policies ranging from direct military action against Pyeongyang to de-conflicting talks with the Korean leadership.
Such an advantage-seeking policy by the White House can sure offer Washington an easily changed policy pathways in dealing with the regional crises, but in the long run will create growing distrust among both allies and opponents of the US on an array of cases including the Syrian conflict.