The missile assaults on Syria and the potential hazards
The missile assaults on Syria were intended to impose a cost on the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons on its civilians while also affecting the government’s future behavior (Finnegan). However, the shift is likely to introduce new hazards. As a result, the White House must pay close attention to the considerable increase while still moving forward with the fight against the Islamic State and attempts to prevent Iran from destabilizing the state.
The need to leverage cooperation with partners
A critical step that the US must take is to leverage cooperation with its partners to protect US forces while also preventing a large-scale escalation that may disrupt the anti-Islamic State effort (Finnegan).It’s with consideration of the reaction about to occur in opposition to the US attack. The Middle East is currently not a safe place, most notably the Syrian conflict that has sprawled to a regional and geopolitical issue involving outside powers. About four years ago, the Assad regime killed over thousands of its people, making the impact tremendous. Many Syrians have lost their lives and got pushed out of their homes due to the conflict. Terrorist groups and organizations such as Al-Qaeda and Islamic State have since found a haven. The fiction issue doing rounds on the ability to contain Syria conflict largely ignores the bearing of instability in the Middle East. It’s with the addition of the evident politics of fear mostly practiced in the West.
The involvement of Russia and the unreliability of its support
From the military action taken, it is crucial that we do not get lost in the political and tactical debate of the issue. An important consideration is the anticipation of a possible cause of action by other states with a stake in Syria largely on three fronts. One of them is Russia that got involved in the conflict in the period late 2015 and had a military presence on the ground. The attacks on Syria were widely condemned by Russia culminating in the suspension of an earlier agreement to prevent conflict between armies in the two states. The backchannel discussions are significant in preventing a wider escalation of the conflict and introduced more unpredictability in Syria. What is more, the discussions might assist in coming up with a shift in the strategic matters on Syria. The latest chemical attack clearly highlights the unreliability of Russia as a counterterrorism partner besides realization of stability in the war-torn Syria. The backing of the Syria government has brought about much harm and undermined efforts to end the civil war.
Managing threats and risks posed by the Syrian government and its backers
The other front is the management of threats and risks posed by the Syrian government and its backers plus terror groups such as Hezbollah. The Israel government managed to deal with intimidations from Syria and Lebanon, thereby making it an important ally to the US in protection against any reactions. The US should also coordinate with states such as Jordan to guarantee stability in the prediction of possible backlash. Last but not least, ensuring that the fight against terrorist organizations is of core interest and closely working with allies. It’s to take charge of the Syrian situation at the same time safeguarding the American troops on the ground from retaliation by militias.
A more robust framework and collaboration needed
In conclusion, based on the bold move to take action, a more robust framework needs to be in place, more so during this period of steady and tactical military intensification in Iraq and Yemen. A wider premium needs to be in place that calls for more collaboration and integration with partners to mitigate growth. More investments in strategic tools are essential plus an integrated strategy that contains the situation and not worsening it.
Work Cited
Finnegan, Conor. “What’s next in Syria after the US Airstrikes?” ABC News, 2017. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/syria-us-airstrikes/story?id=46649030 Accessed April 9, 2017.
