One year with the US illegally launched a 59 cruise missiles at Syrian government forces in response to the alleged attack of chemical weapons, the administration trump is preparing to take similar military action, despite the increased risk of escalation that could lead to the outbreak of a wider war.
United States, France and Britain are preparing to strike the Syrian government in the past few days, and the Russian patron of Syria, has threatened “serious consequences” in response to the attack. Russia did not react in the past year-from air strikes, but Moscow is probably not going to suffer a major attack, the United States conducted with other governments. The Syrian government and its allies, it seems, still willing to fight back than they were a year ago, and that should give the administration trump and our European allies pause. There is high risk of great power conflict in Syria than was ever since the end of the cold war, and if Russian soldiers are killed by the US and allies strikes there’s no telling how quickly things can deteriorate in other parts of the world.
Public statements of the President of trump strongly suggested that the attack will occur in the near future, so far as to taunt Russia in a tweet that “is ready” for “new” and “smart” missiles that the US will use. Some members of Congress insisted that the President has no legal authority to launch an attack on Syria without their permission. As Senator Tim Kane (d-VA) put it, “[I]F that the President can unilaterally make the decision to bomb Syria, I’m worried that he might make the same decision on North Korea or Iran or other countries. And these decisions should not be taken without consultation and a vote in Congress.” Unfortunately, congressional leaders showed no signs of wanting to hold a debate or vote before the attack occurs.
The administration trump has not offered public legal justification for last year’s strikes, and seems unlikely to offer this time. Probably because there is no plausible interpretation of the law that allows the President to take military action against foreign governments on its own when the United States was not attacked. There is no provision of international law that allows a U.S. attack on another government, without the Express sanction of the security Council, and we know that it is the sanctions that will not do in this case because of Russia’s veto. During the attack, sold as implementation of the norms against the use of chemical weapons, it is not possible to uphold international norms, and the violation of fundamental rules of international law.
Today the US and its allies failed to provide any evidence to support their claims against the Syrian government. It is likely that the Syrian government guilty of using chlorine or sarin gas against their enemies and the civilian population, but there has been no real effort by the US and its allies to prove his accusation before to act as executioners. Despite this, the US and its allies have no authority to punish the Syrian government, and thus they can cause significant harm to international peace and security.
In the US-led attack on the Syrian government could lead to war with Russia or Iran, or both at once, and there is a danger that he could help set off the war between Israel and Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said earlier this week that Israel will not allow Iran’s military presence to be established in Syria. Threats to the Prime Minister were on the heels of Israeli strikes in Syria that reportedly had killed seven Iranians, who is serving with the forces of the Syrian regime. Iran has threatened retaliation for the attack, and he has the option of using the “Hezbollah” to carry out this threat if Israel carries out further attacks. Israel can use in the US-led attack on Iran’s allies in Syria as a pretext for a strike on Iran more goals, and then Iran may retaliate to rocket attacks on Israel. Syrian, Lebanese and Israeli citizens will all suffer if this happened, it would have been chaotic international situation is even worse.
It is a measure of how divorced from the US and its allies security, our policy in Syria has become that our government is seriously preparing to launch another illegal attack on a government that had not attacked us and did not threaten us and our allies. Attacking the Syrian government will not make the U.S. or any other country more secure, and it will probably weaken the government enough to prolong the civil war in Syria and to add to the suffering of the civilian population. This is an excellent example of military intervention that is done for its own sake, without reference to a specific are of interest or strategy. No one will benefit from such an attack, except for the ideologues who constantly demanded deeper U.S. involvement in Syria over the past six years.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog. It was published in the new York times book review, Dallas morning news, front porch Republic, and for a week. He has a doctorate in history from the University of Chicago. Follow him on Twitter.
Sourse: theamericanconservative.com
