Trump’s unprecedented strike: Armenian and Karabakh threats of launching missiles in Syria

Interview with Vicken Cheterian, representative of CIMERA center in Geneva, political analyst, foreign affairs specialist, orientalist.

Mr. Cheterian, US president Donald Trump without agreeing with the Congress launched missiles against the Syrian military base near Homs, which basically was the response of the circulated news that Syrian government used chemical weapon, as a result of which about 50 people died, including children, which was denied by Syrian authorities. Trump qualified this as a “red line”. This step by the US raises several questions, as the US hits Syrian governmental troops for the first time in 6 years. What milestone does this suppose for the Syrian conflict?

Naturally, this was big news, as in the period of Barak Obama’s presidency, compared with public opinion and impressions, that Americans have serious interests and mediation in the conflict, the US in the period of the conflict lasting for 6 years refrained from Syrian developments out of different reasons, as the US doesn’t pursue big interests in Syria and Obama attempted to withdraw American troops from the Middle East and Afghanistan. And these strikes showed that Trump will pursue more active military policy in the Middle East. Perhaps this wasn’t the only signal. We saw prior to this that activities of American forces were more mitigated against Iraq, Yemen and other targets. This is a step to show that in the Middle East, mostly, in Syria, the US will have more active military and political role.

The Russian side was the first to reflect to American air strikes on the level of both Russian president and Foreign Minister. The Russian side compared air strikes with invasion into Iraq 14 years ago, qualifying it as baseless military aggression against Syria. On account of already sharpened rhetoric, Russia’s interests in Syria, how will this be reflected in Russia-USA relations?

Regarding the discourse that comes from the Kremlin today, shows there is tension. However, on the other hand, we all understand that these strikes overnight bear a rather symbolic nature. Firstly, if we mean that 59 Tomahawk missiles have been launched on the military base and 6 casualties have been recorded. There is something wrong here, as they are rather powerful missiles, each of which has power equal to 450kg, destructive capabilities of these missiles are much more powerful.

There is something wrong here. I don’t know how precise the information is, however, there was news that the US informed Russian military leadership on possible strike, i.e. there was certain cooperation.

Beyond diplomatic rhetoric, we should take into account that this is a political message, “letter”, and undoubtedly it has its role in the Middle East policy, in Russia-USA relations. However, I consider, the most important platform of this step is US domestic policy. I believe, Trump needs to show that he is powerful, he is a leader, a decision-maker and an actor. We should observe this step in US domestic policy, as he is observed as a rather weak leader.

Although it’s stated on a high level that there will be no strikes, what do you think, how continuous this policy will be on account of its and Russia’s possible reflection?

Yet in the morning US military leadership stated they won’t continue, i.e. this was symbolic, targeted at resumption of negotiations, rather than violation of Syrian conflict balance militarily. This is a symbolic diplomatic message and nothing more.

In your opinion, did the US solve its issue by this airstrike—both internal and external?

It’s difficult to say, however in American public opinion against the background of its hardship and failures Trump attempts to show that it consolidates public opinion around this program, however, I consider Trump has serious issues and he can’t solve the issues by one or two strikes in Syria, this can simply divert attention from his regime to the Middle East, however, its systemic issues emerged as a result of his promises, I don’t consider to be solved through Syrian crisis.

What will be Russian reflection to this? Will it chose the direction of deepening confrontation?

Neither the USA nor Russia have interests to sharpen situation around the Syrian conflict, this is a small issue, there are millions of people suffering, but for big states Syrian conflict isn’t of military, economic importance. I totally exclude direct confrontation between Russians and Americans.

Didn’t this step have a Russian addressee?

Russia’s role in this issue should also be observed in the context of America’s internal issues. Trump is observed from Democrats as Putin puppet and ally. One of Trump’s crucial messages is that he can even take a tough posture toward Putin.

Although you don’t anticipate escalation in Russia-USA relations, there are concerns in Armenia, that maybe Armenia will be involved in this conflict by Russia’s command, on account of Russian military presence and influence in Armenia? How proper are those concerns?

I think Armenia’s unresolved conflict with Azerbaijan, complicated relations with Turkey, alliance with Russia are quite a different topic in international relations, which doesn’t comprise a part of military or political balance of the Middle East and such fears have nothing to do with the reality. Firstly, this activity shouldn’t be brought beyond its context, secondly, I don’t consider that Armenian escalation will be recorded to have an effect on Armenia.

Is it possible that Trump’s this tough posture will spread on other conflicts, including NK, where Russia and the USA function as mediators and where recently the Armenian side recognizes Russia’s leading mediation positions?

I don’t think so. If it has an effect, then there are several candidates—Iraq, Ukraine. Karabakh isn’t among the hot lines, April confrontation was recorded in Karabakh last year, however, in international dimension it’s a very small case, or something equal to one day of Syria or Iraq. Throughout recent 6 years every day 100-150 casualties are recorded, Karabakh holds a very modest position here.

By Araks Martirosyan