This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/world/middleeast/trump-syria-attack.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Trump to Decide Soon Whether to Retaliate for ‘Barbaric Act’ in Syria Trump to Decide Soon Whether to Retaliate for ‘Barbaric Act’ in Syria
(about 9 hours later)
WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday denounced the suspected chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of people in Syria over the weekend as a “barbaric act,” and said he will make a decision in the next 24 to 48 hours about whether to retaliate militarily as he did to a similar assault last year. WASHINGTON — President Trump said Monday that he might seek to hold accountable not just Syria but its patrons in Russia and Iran for a chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of people outside Damascus over the weekend, a move that could widen a geopolitical conflict already roiling the Middle East.
“We’re talking about humanity and it can’t be allowed to happen,” Mr. Trump told reporters at the start of a cabinet meeting at which he suggested that a response would be forthcoming soon. “We’ll be making that decision very quickly, probably by the end of today. We cannot allow atrocities like that.” Mr. Trump, who met with senior military officers and national security officials into the evening on Monday, seemed poised to order an airstrike against Syria that could be carried out as early as Tuesday. Less clear was how he would act on his stated intent to make Syria’s allies “pay a price” for enabling the massacre without risking a perilous cycle of escalation.
Calling the attack “heinous” and “atrocious,” the president suggested that Syria’s patrons in Russia and Iran may also be responsible, and seemed to imply that he would take action of some sort to punish them as well. “If it’s Russia, if it’s Syria, if it’s Iran, if it’s all of them together, we’ll figure it out and we’ll know the answers quite soon,” he told reporters at the opening of a cabinet meeting. “So we’re looking at that very strongly and very seriously.”
“If it’s Russia, if it’s Syria, if it’s Iran, if it’s all of them together, we’ll figure it out and we’ll know the answers quite soon,” he said. “So we’re looking at that very strongly and very seriously.” Mr. Trump has sought to forge a friendship with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, but he suggested that the Kremlin leader, who has troops in Syria propping up the government of President Bashar al-Assad, bears responsibility, as well. “He may, and if he does, it’s going to be very tough, very tough,” Mr. Trump said. “Everybody’s going to pay a price. He will, everybody will.”
Asked if President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, with whom Mr. Trump has sought to forge a friendship, bears responsibility, the president said: “He may and if he does it’s going to be very tough, very tough. Everybody’s going to pay a price. He will, everybody will.” The president now faces a challenge in creating a response to the chemical attack that will be more effective than the missile strike he ordered last year after a similar assault on civilians that he attributed to the Assad government. While only days ago Mr. Trump said he wanted to pull American troops out of Syria and “let the other people take care of it now,” which would effectively mean Russia and Iran, his comments on Monday suggested that he was prepared to take them on.
The White House was feeling pressure from France to act, lest President Emmanuel Macron do so first, according to a Trump administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe sensitive international interactions. Mr. Macron, who spoke on Sunday with Mr. Trump by telephone, has repeatedly declared that the use of chemical weapons by Syria’s government would be a red line and pledged to strike weapons sites connected to such attacks. The United States has potential military options against the Iranian-backed forces that are operating in Syria, either through direct strikes or by seeking to interdict supply flights that cross Iraqi airspace. But American officials made clear that they had no desire to use force against Russian troops in the country. Instead, the president could consider a range of other options to hold Moscow responsible, including further economic sanctions or diplomatic isolation.
After the phone call, the White House issued a statement saying that “both leaders strongly condemned” the attack and agreed that the government of President Bashar al-Assad “must be held accountable.” They vowed to “coordinate a strong, joint response.” Some lawmakers urged Mr. Trump to use sanctions authorized by Congress last year with bipartisan support. “The Syrian regime cannot exist without the support of Russia and Iran,” Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, a senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on CNN. “And we need to take action against both Russia and Iran, making it clear that they need to act to control what President Assad is doing.”
The challenge for Mr. Trump’s Middle East policy came on a day when he was already facing a transition in his foreign policy team as his new national security adviser, John R. Bolton, arrived for his first day on the job and the president was scheduled to host the nation’s senior military leaders for dinner at the White House. Mr. Bolton sat behind Mr. Trump during the cabinet meeting but made no comment while reporters were in the room. But some national security veterans doubted Mr. Trump’s tough words would amount to anything more than that. “Where we may come out with the Iranians and Russians is it’s mostly talk, and he doesn’t have a plan or they don’t have a plan because I just can’t imagine they want to escalate into a military situation,” said Robert S. Ford, a former ambassador to Syria.
National security and military officers were meeting on Monday to discuss options, but defense officials would not say what specific military actions are on the table. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, speaking with reporters on Monday, sounded a muted tone. Mr. Trump left little doubt that he intended to order military response against Syria for what he called a “barbaric act” and said a decision could be made as early as Monday night or soon thereafter. “We’re making a decision as to what we do with respect to the horrible attack that was made near Damascus, and it will be met and it will be met forcefully,” he said Monday evening as he hosted the military leadership for dinner at the White House.
“The first thing we have to look at is why are chemical weapons still being used at all when Russia was the framework guarantor of removing all the chemical weapons,” Mr. Mattis said as he hosted the visiting emir of Qatar at the Pentagon. “And so, working with our allies and partners from NATO to Qatar and elsewhere, we are going to address this issue.” The White House was feeling pressure from France to act, lest President Emmanuel Macron do so first, according to a Trump administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe delicate international interactions. Mr. Macron, who spoke with Mr. Trump by telephone on Sunday and again on Monday, has repeatedly declared that the use of chemical weapons by Syria’s government would be a red line and pledged to strike weapons sites connected to such attacks.
Asked if he would rule out airstrikes against Mr. Assad’s government, Mr. Mattis said, “I don’t rule out anything right now.” Two Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers are in the Sixth Fleet’s area of operations in the Mediterranean Sea and would be able to get within striking range within hours to days. When Mr. Trump ordered the retaliatory strike against Syria at almost the exact same time last year, it was carried out by two destroyers firing 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Al Shayrat airfield, the suspected source of the chemical attack, hitting fighter jets, hardened aircraft shelters, radar equipment, ammunition bunkers and sites for storing fuel and defense systems.
Two Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyers are located in the Sixth Fleet’s area of operations in the Mediterranean Sea and would be able to get within striking range within hours to days. When Mr. Trump ordered the retaliatory strike against Syria at almost the exact same time last year, it was carried out by two destroyers firing 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Al Shayrat airfield, the suspected source of the chemical attack, hitting fighter jets, hardened aircraft shelters, radar equipment, ammunition bunkers and sites for storing fuel and defense systems.
The already tense situation in the Middle East was further inflamed early Monday morning by an attack reportedly conducted by Israel on a Syrian air base used by Iranian-backed militias. The strike killed about 14 people, according to a conflict monitoring group, and Russia and Syria said it was carried out by Israel, whose government declined to confirm its involvement.The already tense situation in the Middle East was further inflamed early Monday morning by an attack reportedly conducted by Israel on a Syrian air base used by Iranian-backed militias. The strike killed about 14 people, according to a conflict monitoring group, and Russia and Syria said it was carried out by Israel, whose government declined to confirm its involvement.
The chemical attack in the suburb of Douma over the weekend killed at least 49 people and raised the temperature of an already simmering relationship between the United States and Russia. Mr. Putin has troops in Syria propping up Mr. Assad’s government. Russia has rejected the conclusion that Syria’s military was behind the chemical attack, asserting that it was staged by militants to falsely blame the government and justify an American strike against Mr. Assad’s regime. The chemical attack in the suburb of Douma over the weekend killed at least 49 people and raised the temperature of an already simmering relationship between the United States and Russia, which rejected the conclusion that Syria’s military was behind the chemical attack. It asserted that the attack was staged by militants to falsely blame the government and justify an American strike against Mr. Assad’s government.
Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov told reporters in Moscow that despite Mr. Trump’s comments last week that he wanted to withdraw American troops from Syria, the United States was actually seeking to entrench itself in the country. “The U.S. is taking steps not to leave as President Trump said, and leave Syria for others, but to establish a foothold there for a very long time,” Mr. Lavrov said. Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei V. Lavrov, told reporters in Moscow that despite Mr. Trump’s comments last week that he wanted to withdraw American troops from Syria, the United States was actually seeking to entrench itself in the country. “The U.S. is taking steps not to leave as President Trump said, and leave Syria for others, but to establish a foothold there for a very long time,” Mr. Lavrov said.
Mr. Trump dismissed the Russian and Syrian denials. “They’re saying they’re not” responsible, “but to me there’s not much of a doubt,” he told reporters. Mr. Trump said that Syria was not allowing any independent inspection of the attack site. “If they’re innocent why aren’t they allowing people to go in and prove” it, he asked. Mr. Trump dismissed the Russian and Syrian denials. “They’re saying they’re not” responsible, “but to me, there’s not much of a doubt,” he told reporters. Mr. Trump said that Syria was not allowing any independent inspection of the attack site. “If they’re innocent, why aren’t they allowing people to go in and prove” it, he asked.
France was not the only European ally to express outrage over the attack. “If confirmed, this is yet another example of the Assad regime’s brutality and brazen disregard for its own people and for its legal obligations not to use these weapons,” Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain said during a visit to Denmark. “If they are found to be responsible, the regime and its backers — including Russia — must be held to account.” France was not the only European ally to express outrage over the attack. “If they are found to be responsible, the regime and its backers — including Russia — must be held to account,” Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain said during a visit to Denmark.
The United Nations Security Council was scheduled to hold an emergency meeting on Monday to discuss the Syria attack but Russia, as a permanent member, holds a veto that would presumably be used to block any action by the world body. At the United Nations, the United States called for an investigation into the site of the attack. Ambassador Nikki R. Haley used an emergency meeting of the Security Council to blame Russia and Iran for “enabling the Assad regime’s murderous destruction.”
The Syria attack presented Mr. Bolton with his first crisis even as he was moving into his West Wing office. Known as a national security hawk, Mr. Bolton has in the past urged military action against governments in Iran and North Korea to counter their nuclear weapons programs, and he remains a staunch defender of the 2003 invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein. “History will record this as the moment when the Security Council either discharged its duty or demonstrated its utter and complete failure to protect the people of Syria,” she said. “Either way, the United States will respond.”
But like Mr. Trump, he resisted a strike against Syria when President Barack Obama was in office and facing a similar choice following a chemical weapons attack against civilians in 2013. In that instance, Mr. Obama sought support from Congress, but ultimately backed off a strike after reaching an agreement with Russia to remove Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal. The United States floated a draft resolution on Monday to establish an independent international panel to look into who used chemicals weapons, which are prohibited by international law, but there is little chance that Russia would agree to it. Late last year, Russia effectively disbanded a previous panel that had been set up to identify perpetrators of chemical weapons strikes inside Syria.
The panel, known as the Joint Investigative Mechanism, looked at eight cases of alleged chemical weapons use in 2015 and 2016, concluding that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons in three attacks and that the Islamic State had used them once. The panel’s mandate expired, and Russia blocked an effort to extend it, calling it a tool of Western powers.
Vassily A. Nebenzia, the Russian ambassador to the United Nations, insisted on Monday that no chemical weapons attack took place at all in Douma, arguing that it had been fabricated to build an “anti-Russian alliance.” He said the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons could visit Damascus, with Russian help, and carry out its investigation.
Mr. Nebenzia went on to boast of Russia’s popularity. “You’re misguided if you think you have friends,” he told Ms. Haley, adding, “Russia has friends. Unlike yourselves, we do not have adversaries.”
In Geneva, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, issued a scathing denunciation of the feeble response to past attacks by the international community in general.
Warring parties in Syria had used chemical weapons at least 35 times since 2013, Mr. al-Hussein said, summing up the response of the international community as “empty words, feeble condemnations and a Security Council paralyzed by the use of the veto.”
“The world — and in particular the veto-wielding states on the Security Council — need to wake up, and wake up fast, to the irreparable damage that is being done to one of the most important planks of global arms control and prevention of human suffering,” he warned.
The crisis came on a day when Mr. Trump’s foreign policy team was in the midst of transition as his new national security adviser, John R. Bolton, arrived for his first day on the job. Still adjusting to the assignment, Mr. Bolton sat back as Vice President Mike Pence led a national security meeting, but he sat next to Mr. Trump for his dinner with the generals. Mr. Trump was expected to huddle with Mr. Bolton, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, after dinner.
Known as a national security hawk, Mr. Bolton in the past urged military action against governments in Iran and North Korea to counter their nuclear programs, and he remains a staunch defender of the 2003 invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein.
But like Mr. Trump, he resisted a strike against Syria when President Barack Obama was in office and facing a similar choice after a chemical weapons attack against civilians in 2013. In that instance, Mr. Obama sought support from Congress, but ultimately backed off a strike after reaching an agreement with Russia to remove Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.
“If I were a member of Congress, I would vote against an authorization to use force here,” Mr. Bolton said at the time. “I don’t think it’s in America’s interest. I don’t think we should in effect take sides in the Syrian conflict.”“If I were a member of Congress, I would vote against an authorization to use force here,” Mr. Bolton said at the time. “I don’t think it’s in America’s interest. I don’t think we should in effect take sides in the Syrian conflict.”
Mr. Bolton took a different position when Mr. Trump ordered action last year. “I think the Trump decision to strike as they did was the correct decision,” he said then. “I think the limited, very precise nature of what the president did and the basis on which he did it was important.” He added: “I think there is an American national interest in preventing people from violating treaties that try to restrict the use or the spread of weapons of mass destruction.” Mr. Bolton took a different position when Mr. Trump ordered action last year. “I think the Trump decision to strike as they did was the correct decision,” he said then. He added, “I think there is an American national interest in preventing people from violating treaties that try to restrict the use or the spread of weapons of mass destruction.”