Bombing Assad Won’t Change Resentments in the Middle East Over American Power

Bombing Assad Won’t Change Resentments in the Middle East Over American Power
Ahmed Aboul-Gheit, the secretary-general of the Arab League, left, and Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir attend a press conference at the end of the Arab summit in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, April 15, 2018 (AP photo by Amr Nabil).

The early reactions of Syria’s neighbors to the joint strikes by the United States, France and the United Kingdom on three chemical weapons-related facilities last Friday night fell into familiar patterns. As the reality of the very limited nature of the attack sinks in, expect the full range of responses, capturing the deep ambivalence in the Middle East toward American power. Most countries in the region resent excessive demonstrations of what they see as American arrogance, but they miss American force when it is not there. Some even hoped in vain that the strikes would signal a new willingness for Washington to end the slaughter in Syria.

Most commentary in Western capitals has coalesced around the view that the U.S., France and the U.K. chose a cautious and mostly symbolic demonstration of force against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s appalling use of chemical weapons, most recently in Douma, a suburb on the outskirts of Damascus. They struck only three targets—a scientific research center outside Damascus involved in the production of chemical weapons, and two chemical weapons storage facilities near Homs—where the risk of civilian or Russian casualties was also low. The message was to uphold the global norm against the use of chemical weapons, not to assert a new role for the U.S. and its allies in the Syrian civil war. Their demand of Assad was to stop using chemical weapons, full stop.

The attack had other notable features, including Washington’s decision to engage key European partners in France and the U.K., and the complexity of launching cruise missiles from multiple platforms in the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. Pentagon briefers proudly proclaimed that it was “precise, overwhelming and effective,” and would set the Syrian chemical weapons program back “for years.”

Keep reading for free!

Get instant access to the rest of this article by submitting your email address below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:

Or, Subscribe now to get full access.

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

What you’ll get with an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review:

A WPR subscription is like no other resource — it’s like having a personal curator and expert analyst of global affairs news. Subscribe now, and you’ll get:

  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • Regular in-depth articles with deep dives into important issues and countries.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.
  • The Weekly Review email, with quick summaries of the week’s most important coverage, and what’s to come.
  • Completely ad-free reading.

And all of this is available to you when you subscribe today.