Understanding Syria's Likely Reaction to the U.S. Cruise Missile Strikes
The recent U.S. military strike on Syrian airbases has raised questions regarding Syria's potential response. It is highly unlikely that they would take direct military action against the United States, given the vast disparity in military capabilities. Instead, it is more probable that they would direct their retaliatory actions against other parties, especially those that have been allied with the United States in the fight against ISIS.
Why Syria Cannot Directly Threaten U.S. Interests
Given that Syria is significantly weaker in terms of military and economic power compared to the United States, any direct confrontation with the U.S. would be futile. The Angara movement, supported by Russia, Iran, and the Syrian regime, have been primarily responsible for weakening ISIS. Therefore, a symbolic gesture by the U.S. to deter further threat from chemical weapons use or as a moral stance may be all that is necessary within the context of the ongoing conflict.
How Syria Might Respond
The analysis suggests that Syria is more concerned with internal and regional dynamics rather than seeking to challenge the U.S. directly. They are likely to target refugee camps or other areas that may be supporting the U.S. and its allies in the region. The practical outcome of such retaliation is more likely to escalate regional tensions without significantly altering the balance of power between Syria and the U.S. This could also shift the narrative to support Russia's interests within Syria and the broader region.
ISIS and the Future Implications
The destruction of the Syrian airbases and the subsequent botched inability to target strategic assets might inadvertently help ISIS if not dealt with carefully. Syrian commanders may have rescued some of their fighters who were in the targeted areas, potentially spreading their influence and radicalizing further. This scenario underscores the importance of continued U.S. and allied support in neutralizing these threats.
Effectiveness of the U.S. Strike
The strike, though costly in terms of resources (around $120 million), seems to have been less effective in its intended objectives. The airbases attacked were operational within days of the strikes. The actual damage was minimal, with only a few aircraft lost and the damage restricted to outdated MiGs and basic infrastructure. This limited success indicates a potential shift in U.S. strategy, possibly moving towards more symbolic or low-intensity actions to maintain a show of force.
Strategic Considerations and International Implications
Russian involvement in Syria is likely to increase as the United States maintains a low profile following the strike. Putin can use the situation to justify the full-scale occupation of Syria and to enhance Russia's military and political presence in the region. The United Nations Security Council meeting is also likely to provide an opportunity for Russia to delegitimize the U.S. and its efforts in Syria. This political maneuvering may lead to increased tensions and a complex diplomatic landscape in the coming weeks.
Overall, the U.S. military strike may have short-term symbolic value but is unlikely to have immediate or significant military or political impacts. The strategic and diplomatic battles continue, with Russia and other regional powers poised to influence the outcome of the conflict in Syria.
Conclusion
The U.S. cruise missile strike on Syrian airbases signals a continuation of the international effort to address the threat of ISIS. However, the effectiveness of such actions is limited by the complex political and military dynamics in the tensions and future geopolitical moves are likely to reshape the landscape of the Syrian conflict, with Russia likely to play a more dominant role.