In the seven years since the beginning of Syria’s Civil War, the American response has not been effective enough to end the blood bath. Despite President Obama’s "red line" rhetoric related to chemical attacks, and Congress’ call to take stronger action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, no real response took place prior to last week’s airstrikes ordered by the Trump administration. But this is only one small step, and the pressure from the United States and the international community must continue from here in order to have true impact in Syria.

The Arab Spring reached Syria in 2011 and saw the Syrian people rise up and seek democracy in their country and freedom from tyrannical dictatorship. Though non-violent for the first six months, the Assad regime confronted peaceful protestors with snipers and tanks. In seven years, the casualties of the Syrian people’s quest for civil liberties have grown from a handful of protesters shot by government forces to hundreds of thousands of civilians dead. In the past two years, the Assad government, with Russian aid, has laid siege to residential areas of Aleppo, once the country’s second-largest city, and several other areas controlled by opposition groups, decimating entire neighborhoods.

Back at the White House, Robert Stephen Ford, an American diplomat who previously served as the Ambassador to Syria, met with President Obama on many occasions during his presidency. As a result of these presidential meetings, Ambassador Ford went on to meet with many of the Syrian activists. He gave them hope and made promises that the United States would support the democratic goals of the Syrian people in their fight for freedom.

President Obama responded to Assad’s war crimes by publicly stating in a speech that the use of chemical weapons was crossing a "red line" that would not be tolerated. But he backed off from the "red line" rhetoric and allowed the Assad regime to stay in power.

In August 2013, the Assad regime launched its largest chemical attack in the suburb of Damascus. That same month, President Obama responded to Assad’s war crimes by publicly stating in a speech that the use of chemical weapons was crossing a "red line" that would not be tolerated.

Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham urged President Obama to "take immediate action to impose the consequences he has promised."

Their recommendation continued: "That should include the provision of arms to vetted Syrian opposition groups, targeted strikes against Assad’s aircraft and SCUD missile batteries on the ground, and the establishment of safe zones inside Syria to protect civilians and opposition groups. If today’s reports are substantiated, the tragic irony will be that these are the exact same actions that could have prevented the use of weapons of mass destruction in Syria."

But President Obama did not heed their call. He backed off from the "red line" rhetoric and allowed the Assad regime to stay in power.

Trump's recent retaliation against Syria's use of chemical weapons lacked a powerful punch, but it was not insignificant. The legitimacy of the strike was aided by the joint strikes by the UK and France.

The airstrikes that took place last week on Friday, April 13, were a retaliation strike from President Trump against the Assad regime for use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians living in the suburbs of Damascus. This retaliation lacked a powerful punch, but it was not insignificant. The legitimacy of the strike was aided by the joint strikes by the UK and France.

The airstrikes undermined the Russian presence in Syria and have damaged Russia’s ability to determine the political future of the Syrian people. They have also caused Iran to recalculate its strategy in Syria and may even give them cause to potentially reevaluate their position on Assad.

The message of the Trump administration could have been more effective had it not come at a time when the president was in the midst of a crucial week concerning his presidency and the investigation around the 2016 campaign and the Trump administration’s relationship with Russia. It is unclear whether this strike was conducted to call attention away from the FBI investigation, or if the United States is creating a hardline position against Assad’s chemical attacks, where every transgression made by Assad will be met with new strikes.

Either way, the pressure against Assad must only increase from here. This retaliation has indeed weakened Assad as well as the chances of him continuing to utilize chemical weapons in the future, but it will not completely deter him from killing by other means. Pressure and force must be applied to Assad for him to accept a political solution through the United Nations. The coalition must continue to bomb Assad’s air force and consistently weaken him to the point where he is left with no choice but to end up at the negotiation table.

Other than airstrikes, the United States can do a number of things to improve the situation. New sanctions can be placed on Russia that directly reference their holdings in Syria.

Other than airstrikes, the United States can do a number of things to improve the situation. New sanctions can be placed on Russia that directly reference their holdings in Syria. This would more firmly establish the role of the United States against Russia in relation to the existence of Assad’s regime.

The United States also needs to place more pressure on Iran to pull troops out of Syria. Also, due to the ambiguity of authority within the Trump administration as a result of FBI investigations and frequent resignations and terminations, in order to more effectively entrench a position against Assad’s regime, it would be beneficial for the president himself to outline an agenda that leads to Assad’s fall or at least to the stop of military attacks on civilians. This would allow the public to know that this is a mission of the Trump administration, not just the agenda of a security adviser that may be out of the job before they can enact any effective foreign policy commitments.

_______________________

Susan Baaj is a Pacific Council member and chair of the Syrian Institute for Progress.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Pacific Council.