The Chemical Attack in Syria: Analyzing the Likelihood of Conspiracy
Last year, the Syria conflict intensified with a series of attacks that have sent fear and uncertainty into the hearts of global policymakers. Among the most troubling of these events was the reported chemical attack in 2018. This incident raised questions about potential conspiracies, with names like Putin and Trump being mentioned. While the existence of the attack is clear, the question of who ordered it remains a mystery. This article delves into the possibilities and delves into why the Russian, Trump, and Assad administrations might or might not be involved.
Putin, Trump, and the Syrian Chemical Attack: Could They Have Collaborated?
Occam's Razor Approach
Cardinal 's principle, known as Occam's Razor, suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the most likely. In the context of the Syria chemical attack, Assad is the most probable prime mover.
While stranger scenarios are certainly possible, Putin and Trump each have their own reasons not to be involved:
Why Trump Wouldn't Order It
Diversionary Politics
Trump, who directs the world's most powerful military, might theoretically be involved in orchestrating a diversion, but this is highly unlikely. The U.S. president does care about using military might to create distractions, but he has no direct power to instigate a chemical attack in Syria without conflict authorization from Congress or the United Nations.
Why Putin Wouldn't Order It
Military Proxy and Client State
While Putin might have the ability to orchestrate a chemical attack in Syria, he has no interest in giving Trump a strategic advantage or making it harder for him to maintain Assad as a key ally. This role has proven lucrative for Russia, as Assad remains a critical client state, ensuring Russian strategic interests in the region.
Why Assad Could Have Ordered It
Priming the Political Battlefield
Assad, on the other hand, had a straightforward motive: to use limited and plausible deniability to prime the political battlefield for the next phase of his regime. He may have expected both the Russian and American governments to be focused elsewhere, Russia because it has a vested interest in Assad, and the U.S. because it has been largely unconcerned with the situation for years.
The Constraints and Interests of the Key Players
Assad's Calculation
Assad has a particular incentive to strike in this manner. By limiting the attack's scale and ensuring there is a plausible deniability, he can still draw international condemnation and assistance without appearing to initiate a full-scale chemical attack. Such a limited strike ensures that the retaliation would not be as severe as a full-scale strike, thus maintaining the balance between retaliation and not overstepping crucial red lines.
Putin's Strategic Position
Putin has a robust and consistent relationship with Assad, maintaining a stable and beneficial client state. While a chemical attack would draw international attention, Putin is more concerned with maintaining the status quo in Syria than any fleeting political advantage from exacerbating the situation further.
Trump's Practical Limitations
For Trump, the situation is one of practical limitations. He cannot control the Syrian military without international backing, making him an unlikely instigator of a Syrian chemical attack. While he might have sought to create a political diversion, the U.S. government's checks and balances would likely prevent such actions from being directly executed by the president.
Conclusion: The Most Likely Scenario
While the combination of Putin and Trump conspiring to arrange the chemical attack in Syria is a thought-provoking narrative, Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation. Given the motivations and constraints of the key players involved—Assad stands as the most probable suspect, with Putin and Trump having less incentive and fewer capabilities for direct involvement.
In the complex landscape of geopolitics, the simplest and most probable explanation is often the best one. Under this interpretation, Assad's actions align perfectly with his strategic interests, while the actions of the other two leaders remain more in line with their direct roles and practical limitations.
Conclusion
The investigation into the Syria chemical attack can only suggest the most probable explanations. While it is a complex scenario with many possibilities, it appears that Assad's interests and actions align most closely with the reality of the situation. Further evidence and investigation will be needed to draw definitive conclusions, but for now, Occam's Razor offers a plausible framework to guide our understanding of this critical geopolitical event.