Two and a half cheers for the Syria strike

After eight years of passivity and equivocation in the face of the most horrific human tragedies unfolding in Syria, every display of Western assertiveness, however symbolic, is welcome. By all accounts, the Syrian regime, sponsored by Russia and Iran, used chemical weapons repeatedly. It’s hard to argue that Western inaction — particularly President Barack Obama’s 2013 decision not to enforce its red line after the attack in Ghouta — has not increased the Assad regime’s brazenness. Limited as the military significance of Friday’s strikes might be, the loud denouncements from Moscow and Tehran, as well the note of disquiet from Beijing, suggest that the right people have taken note.

A Syrian firefighter is seen inside the destroyed Scientific Research Centre in Damascus, Syria April 14, 2018. REUTERS/Omar Sanadiki

Those who do not trust Donald Trump’s judgment may have their concerns assuaged by the fact the United States is not acting alone but in concert with its key European allies, France and the UK, both governed by conventional and level-headed leaders. In a rare display of health for the transatlantic partnership, even the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, expressed support for the strikes, saying that “the EU stand with our allies on the side of justice.”

Of course, the intervention is not without its risks. One blemish is the existing divisions among European countries and even within the EU institutions. There, the High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy Federica Mogherini visibly contradicted Tusk by repeating the tired mantra about political, not military, solutions to the conflict and about the need to “shift the focus on diplomacy and peacemaking” — as if that had never occurred to anyone before and as if Mr. Assad, Iran’s mullahs, and the Kremlin were willing to negotiate in good faith.

Another even more pressing problem is that the strikes on Friday do not go anywhere near changing the balance of power on the ground — and much less toward imposing sizable costs on the Iranian and Russian regimes who are effectively controlling the situation. Without a more aggressive posture particularly against Russia — involving additional sanctions against regime officials and oligarchs, asset freezes, and cutting Russian state-owned and state-connected banks from the global financial system — Vladimir Putin has little reason to seriously rethink his complicity in Mr. Assad’s war crimes.