Trump strikes in Syria a deterrent, but political fallout unclear

US President Donald Trump. (AP)
Updated 08 April 2017
Follow

Trump strikes in Syria a deterrent, but political fallout unclear

WASHINGTON: The debate in Washington swirled yesterday over strikes in Syria approved by President Donald Trump, the first for the US against the regime of Bashar Assad.
The White House sold them as a military and political success, while experts emphasized the deterrence impact but questioned the broader implications for the six-year-old conflict.
White House spokesperson Sean Spicer described the strikes as a “decisive, justified and proportional” response to what the US believes was the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime on Monday.
Spicer laid out to reporters a “72-hour-evolution” for Trump from being briefed on the Khan Sheikhun atrocity on Tuesday morning followed by interagency and national security meetings, and leading up to authorizing the strikes on Thursday evening before they commenced at 7:40 p.m. ET.
A US official who spoke to Arab News on condition of anonymity categorized three goals and justifications for Trump’s action. The official said “promoting regional stability, deterring the use of chemical weapons, and protecting a civilian population” prompted the decision on Trump’s 76th day in office.

‘A display of strength’
For experts and close watchers of Syria, however, there were more reasons for Trump to act.
Faysal Itani, a resident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, told Arab News that a combination of internal and geopolitical reasons triggered the US action.
He added that the US President “didn’t have to do it, especially (given) that he hadn’t committed to any red line — like his predecessor Barack Obama (did) in 2012 — and was not constrained by the fate of Assad.”
The 59 Tomahawk missiles fired from two US Navy destroyers in the East Mediterranean granted a “display of strength and toughness that could help Trump abroad and at home,” said Itani.
“This is his idea of American power, and he probably felt embarrassment and frustration after declaring that Assad’s removal from power is no longer a priority one week before the attack.”
Geopolitically, US allies in the Middle East that welcomed the strikes had “pressed the US to do something about Syria,” added the expert.

‘Tilt toward Tehran is finished’
Assad’s backers were also said to be in the US calculus in planning the operation. “This is a turning point,” former US diplomat and defense official Lincoln Bloomfield told Arab News. “It starts with the US reasserting its leadership and reconnecting with the Arab world,” he added. The attack on Assad’s airfield means “the US tilt toward Tehran is finished.”
Itani cautioned, however, not to overstate the implications of the limited US response. “We don’t necessarily go anywhere from here,” Itani said. The value of deterrence and punishment are the primary accomplishments of the operation, he added.
“If I were Bashar Assad, I wouldn’t use chemical weapons again; in that aspect the US achieved deterrence and punishment but it doesn’t mean anything beyond that,” he added.
Bloomfield disagreed, pointing to Trump’s references to the carnage and the killing of Syrians, and noting that the US President “didn’t limit his comments to chemical weapons.” In the post-strike trajectory, said Bloomfield, “if the Assad regime continues to attack hospitals, then there is an obligation for the US to act with other countries.”

Russia-US ties
The US military operation, both Itani and Bloomfield contended, has complicated if not blocked any Trump efforts for a rapprochement with Moscow.
“Russia has to make very tough decisions,” said Bloomfied. “It is guilty of using military weapons to kill civilians on a large scale, but it can choose an agenda of cooperation with the US in Syria to move toward a legitimate process.”
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is scheduled to arrive in Russia next Tuesday as US-Russia tension grows at the UN Security Council and on separate investigations.
The US Defense Department announced on Friday that it is looking into whether Russia participated in the Syrian chemical weapon attack. If such a hypothesis is proven, US sanctions could be ratcheted up on the Kremlin.
On the ground in Syria, Itani said the airfield strikes could possibly jeopardize or delay the US plans for the battle in Raqqa against Daesh, while in contrast they make the idea of establishing safe zones more possible.
Riad Hijab, a Syrian opposition leader and chairman of the High Committee of the Syrian negotiations, told a policy crowd in Washington yesterday that he submitted to the White House a “plan to establish safe zones in several areas in Syria.”
Hijab met with officials at the Pentagon, White House and the State Department as well as with members of congress but he maintained that the opposition was “neither consulted nor briefed on Trump’s military planning.”
The strikes in Syria added muscle and leverage to US policy, the experts agreed. But without a clear US political and integrated national security strategy for the conflict, the outcome could be short-lived.


Analysis: The risks of carving up Yemen

Updated 5 sec ago
Follow

Analysis: The risks of carving up Yemen

  • Yemen’s government and regional powers warn unilateral moves in the south could push country toward breaking point
  • Analysts say the STC’s rapid expansion risks provoking rival Yemeni factions, deepening instability

RIYADH: Concern is mounting that Yemen is sliding toward a de-facto partition, with rival authorities consolidating control over separate regions.

In the south, the Southern Transitional Council has expanded its footprint, while Iran-backed Houthi forces remain firmly entrenched in the north.

Those fears have intensified in recent weeks, driven by the STC’s latest military operation and the widening Red Sea conflict. Together, they raise a central question: Will Yemen’s decade-long war end in reconciliation, or fracture into competing statelets?

On Dec. 23, Rashad Al-Alimi, head of the Presidential Leadership Council, the executive body of Yemen’s internationally recognized government, warned that unilateral actions by the STC were pushing the country toward a dangerous tipping point.

Rashad Mohammed Al-Alimi, president of the Presidential Leadership Council of Yemen, speaks during the United Nations General Assembly at UN headquarters on September 25, 2025 in New York City. (AFP)

Speaking to Yemeni diplomats, Al-Alimi said the group’s actions threatened internal stability and undermined the security of neighboring states, according to the state-run SABA news agency.

“These actions reached a dangerous stage this week,” he said at the time, citing pressure on state institutions to endorse the division of the country and adopt political positions beyond their authority.

Such steps, he added, jeopardize the unity of decision-making and the state’s legal standing.

Al-Alimi stressed that “under no circumstances can partnership in governance turn into rebellion against the state or an attempt to impose reality by force.”

The STC has expanded control in Hadramout and Al-Mahra, moves widely seen as advancing its longstanding push for autonomy. (AFP file photo)

He also warned that the STC’s moves could complicate regional security commitments and international efforts to protect maritime corridors, energy supplies and commercial shipping in the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

Saudi Arabia echoed those concerns. On Dec. 25, the Kingdom said recent STC military movements were carried out unilaterally, resulting in an “unjustified escalation” that harmed the interests of Yemenis, the Southern cause and the coalition’s efforts.

In a statement carried by the Saudi Press Agency, the foreign ministry said Riyadh has consistently prioritized Yemen’s unity and spared no effort to pursue peaceful solutions in the affected governorates, Hadramout and Al-Mahra.

Within that framework, the statement said, Saudi Arabia worked with the UAE, Al-Alimi and the Yemeni government to contain the situation.

A joint Saudi-Emirati military team was dispatched to Aden to arrange the return of STC forces to their previous positions outside the two governorates and to hand over camps to the Nation Shield Forces and local authorities under coalition supervision.

Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman said on Saturday that in response to the request of Yemen’s legitimate government, the Kingdom has “brought together brotherly countries to participate in a coalition supporting legitimacy” to restore “the Yemeni state’s control over all of its territory.”

In a post on X, Prince Khalid urged the STC to respond to Saudi-Emirati mediation efforts and withdraw from the two southern governorates and “hand them over peacefully to the forces of the National Shield and local authorities.”

“The southern issue will remain present in any comprehensive political settlement and must be resolved through consensus, honouring commitments and building trust among all Yemenis, not through adventurism that serves only the enemy of all,” he added.

For his part, UN chief Antonio Guterres said that a resumption of fighting in Yemen could reverberate across the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and the Horn of Africa.

“Unilateral actions will not clear a path to peace,” he said on Dec. 17. “They deepen divisions, harden positions, and raise the risk of wider escalation and further fragmentation.”

Until recently, Yemen’s battle lines had largely stayed frozen. Major frontlines had been stable since a nationwide ceasefire in 2022. Although the truce formally expired after six months, large-scale fighting did not resume.

But that balance shifted on Dec. 2, when the STC launched a military offensive in the south and clashed with Yemeni government units and tribal-aligned forces.

Within days, the group seized control of two non-Houthi governorates that together account for nearly half of Yemen’s territory — Wadi Hadramout and Al-Mahra.

Hadramout borders Saudi Arabia and holds an estimated 80 percent of Yemen’s oil reserves, while Al-Mahra borders Oman. Both regions had largely escaped direct clashes between government forces and the Houthis for more than a decade.

The offensive was a turning point. By extending its authority over most of the territory that once formed South Yemen — an independent state until unification in 1990 — the STC, despite being part of the internationally recognized government, appeared to move closer to its longstanding goal of independence.

The latest development has deepened concerns in the region that Yemen’s conflict is hardening into a divided reality that may be difficult to reverse.

“With every crisis, calls for secession between southern and northern Yemen resurface,” a seasoned analyst of Middle East politics told Arab News. “The current phase is decisive, as the STC is taking concrete steps to prepare for the separation of the south.”

In response, the analyst said, the PLC has warned against the creation of a parallel authority and the division of the country.

That position, he added, has found open support among politicians and officials affiliated with the STC, particularly in Hadramout and Al-Mahra, who have aligned themselves behind STC President Aidarous Al-Zubaidi, who also serves as a vice president of the PLC.

The analyst noted that some observers see parallels with the Houthis’ consolidation of power in northern Yemen, arguing that the STC’s approach risks repeating the same model of domination.

“This requires a political proposal that reassures the rest of Yemenis, as well as the most important neighbor, Saudi Arabia,” the analyst said, noting that Yemen’s fate has historically not been determined without Riyadh’s involvement.

Some Yemeni media outlets have reported that the STC’s secessionist moves were coordinated with the Houthis under an alleged arrangement that would leave the south to the STC and the north, including Sanaa, to the Iran-aligned group.

“While such claims remain unverified, analysts broadly agree that Yemen is heading toward deeper division — a prospect widely feared across the country,” the analyst said.

Rather than signaling an end to the conflict, he added, partition could lead to renewed flare-ups and the emergence of new actors, “particularly given that STC-controlled areas such as Hadramout and Al-Mahra are oil-rich regions holding the bulk of Yemen’s natural resources,” which is “likely to intensify competition rather than stabilize the country.”

In a widely discussed recent column, Abdulrahman Al-Rashed, former general manager of Al Arabiya and former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, used the term “geographic determinism” to describe what he said continues to shape Yemen’s trajectory.

“Forces in the south, and likewise in the north, cannot succeed in their political projects without the major northern neighbor — even if they succeed temporarily,” he said. “This has been true since the 1960s and remains so today.”

Even the Houthis, he argued, operate within structural limits despite Iranian backing. “They are an Iranian proxy with an ideological project, not a national Yemeni component,” Al-Rashed wrote, adding that the militia has begun to realize that its reliance on Tehran could threaten its survival.

Strategically, he added, geography and demography favor long-term regional influence. More than two million Yemenis live in Saudi Arabia — a vital economic and social lifeline that will shape Yemen’s future for decades.

The STC’s rise, he warned, threatens not only to divide Yemen, but also to fragment the south itself, which has experienced multiple state entities over the past century.

“Its rapid, unilateral expansion, particularly into Hadrami areas, risks provoking rival southern forces and deepening instability, mirroring the dynamics that empowered the Houthis,” Al-Rashed said.

Al-Rashed said the STC’s vision of restoring an independent southern state can succeed only under two conditions: broad Yemeni acceptance through an inclusive political project; and Saudi support.

“Without that,” he wrote, “the Transitional Council will not go far or last long and may ultimately undermine the very idea of southern unity that depends on its relationship with Riyadh.”

Yemen has endured decades of civil war. The Houthis control much of the populous northwest, including the capital, Sanaa.

The conflict has killed thousands and triggered one of the world’s gravest humanitarian crises, according to the UN, leaving an estimated 21 million people, nearly half the population, dependent on aid and more than 4.5 million displaced.

Amid the political turmoil, the Houthis and the Yemeni government reached an agreement on Dec. 23 to conduct a large-scale prisoner exchange, a rare humanitarian step aimed at de-escalation.

Abdulqader Hasan Yahya Al-Murtadha, head of the Houthi National Committee for Prisoners’ Affairs, said the deal included the release of 1,700 Houthi detainees in exchange for 1,200 prisoners held by the other side.

Saudi Arabia and the European Union welcomed the prisoner exchange deal reached in Muscat, Oman, and hailed the role of the UN special envoy for Yemen and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

While the Houthi war with the Yemeni government and rival factions has largely stalled, it has drawn renewed international attention since October 2023, when the militia escalated attacks on Israel and commercial shipping in the Red Sea in response to the war in Gaza.

In response, the US and Israel carried out strikes in Sanaa, reportedly killing dozens of civilians and political figures as they sought to curb Houthi attacks. This added yet another layer of volatility to an already fractured country.