As Russia, Turkey and Iran discuss Idlib’s fate, the US is left to its impotent ‘anger’

There was a time, not long ago, when the US called the shots in the Middle East. But as Russia and its allies prepare a devastating military offensive in Idlib, in north-west Syria, those days are gone. The world’s most powerful nation has spiked its own guns. The once-proud ramparts of Pax Americana have been stormed by America First.

Donald Trump’s warning this week that the US would be “very angry” about slaughter in Idlib underscored American impotence. Angry is not a plan. But Trump has scant leverage. He has ignored diplomatic efforts to end Syria’s seven-year civil war. He has ended support for anti-regime rebels. And he talks of recalling US forces assisting pro-western Kurds.

Trump’s objectives in Syria, in so far as he has a defined policy, are twofold. Firstly, to kill or catch remaining terrorists belonging to Islamic State. Secondly, to curb Iran’s influence by forcing the withdrawal of Revolutionary Guards units and Tehran-controlled Shia militias, as demanded by Israel.

The fate of Idlib’s 3 million civilians, roughly half of whom fled other parts of Syria, is plainly not a Trump priority. UN and aid agency officials suggest tens of thousands may die, and hundreds of thousands may be displaced, as Russian and Syrian forces storm the last rebel stronghold. But Trump’s war is confined to posturing on Twitter.

US says Syria preparing Idlib chemical attack as Turkey urges restraint Read more

One scenario could change this dynamic: another use of chemical weapons by Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad. A chemical attack on Douma, north of Damascus, in April persuaded Trump to launch missile strikes on regime targets. The US national security adviser, John Bolton, recently hinted at a similar response should Assad transgress again.

Russia is running disinformation operations that analysts say may be a screen for new chemical attacks in Idlib. Jim Jeffrey, Trump’s Syria envoy, claimed this week that the US possessed “lots of evidence” that such attacks were being prepared.

Trump is not solely responsible for US neglect of Syria and consequent Russian strategic gains in the Middle East. Barack Obama refused to get directly involved. He effectively outsourced the conflict to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, when he agreed to Moscow taking charge of the disposal of Assad’s chemical weapons stockpile in 2013-14.

The disposal operation was a sham, but it allowed Obama to circumvent his own “red line” banning chemical weapon use. Russian armed forces entered Syria in 2015 and have been there ever since, ensuring Assad’s survival.

Yet Trump has furthered weakened the US position through his kowtowing to Russia. Attention in Washington is focused on Russian subversion of the 2016 presidential election and possible collusion. The furore has obscured Russia’s many malign activities elsewhere, notably in Syria.

Trump’s irrelevance will be highlighted on Friday when Iran hosts a summit in Tehran with Russia and Turkey to discuss a “phased” Idlib offensive and what Moscow calls “long-term normalisation” in postwar Syria. The US is not at the table. Its views on Idlib or the country’s future will not be heard.

Iran would not be expected to listen to Washington, given Trump’s hostility, although it is keen to show it is a key player. But Turkey is a different matter. A longstanding US ally and Nato member, Turkey is opposed to any Idlib offensive, fearing a new cross-border refugee surge. It could have represented US views in Tehran.

The fact the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, will not do so is entirely down to Trump’s self-defeating antics. Through his intemperate verbal assaults, and imposition of sanctions and punitive trade tariffs on Ankara, Trump has “lost” Turkey. Erdoğan is in a bind over Idlib. But he will not do US bidding.

Could Trump suddenly switch tack and jump in, prompted by atrocities in Idlib? It’s possible. Jeffrey said Washington had repeatedly asked Russia whether it could “operate” in Idlib against Isis and other jihadists. Any notional US military involvement could evolve to embrace wider political and humanitarian objectives.

But that looks unlikely. At present the Pentagon seems more concerned about a Russian threat to attack an area of eastern Syria, bordering Iraq and Jordan, where a handful of US troops is based. How the mighty have fallen. While the Russians run riot across a region that Washington once dominated, the US is reduced to observer status, watching as defenceless civilians die.