Registration was successful!
Please follow the link from the email sent to

'Anti-War, America 1st Momentum' on Both Right and Left – Scholar on Protests

© Sputnik / Alex McNaughton / Go to the photo bankParticipants in a protest in London against missile strikes on Syria
Participants in a protest in London against missile strikes on Syria - Sputnik International
The US will remain in Syria until its goals there are accomplished according to Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN. She has said that ensuring that chemical weapons are not used in any way that poses a risk to US interests is among the three goals Washington is pursuing in Syria. The defeat of Daesh and monitoring Iran are the other two aims.

Sputnik discussed the US' plans in Syria with Dr. Jeanne Zaino, American political analyst and professor of Political Science at Iona College.

Sputnik: How close in your view is the US to achieve its three stated goals in Syria as per the last 24 hours?

Dr. Jeanne Zaino: What we've heard from Nikki Haley in particular and from the president and the administration is the three stated goals are to ensure that chemical weapons are not used again, to defeat ISIS [Daesh*] and also a vantage point monitor Iran's activities.

READ MORE: Ex-US Envoy Explains Goals of Trump's Strike on Syria

The administration is saying that ISIS should be defeated in six months, there are many people including myself who would think that that is actually not the case, but that's what the administration is saying, obviously, in terms of the use of chemical weapons it's unknown how closely it would be to achieving that goal if you believe that they were actually used in the first place and there's some dispute on that here as well, and then in terms of the vantage point to watch Iran that's something that we would never achieve, we would be there to watch, so a long answer to your question is I think we're still a good ways off and if one of the stated goals is to be in the area to watch Iran's activities we would presumably be there an awfully long time.

© Sputnik / Alex McNaughton / Go to the photo bankParticipants in a protest in London against missile strikes on Syria
Participants in a protest in London against missile strikes on Syria - Sputnik International
Participants in a protest in London against missile strikes on Syria

Sputnik: The US troops stationed in Syria were not involved in the strikes this poses a very interesting question really, how can these troops actually make a difference? What is their role there if they were not getting actively involved in this particular strike? And also then the policing of the chemical weapons usage in the future with regard to Syria, what's your feeling about that?

Dr. Jeanne Zaino: It's incredibly interesting that the 2,000 troops that we have stationed there were not used in the attacks over the weekend and you add to that the fact that the French president has said he convinced President Trump to keep the troops in the area and President Trump and his spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders have refuted that and said that it's not the case, and, in fact, he would pull the troops out sooner rather than later.

READ MORE: UK Academics Questioning Western Foreign Policy in Syria — Professor

So in terms of a long-term use of these troops to ensure, for instance, chemical weapons are not used again you hear the commander-in-chief and his spokesperson saying that, in fact, that's not in the offing, that they're being pulled out in the short-term, the president less than a week or two ago was saying within the next few weeks. So I don't think that there's any plans at this point for these troops to have much of a role in whatever the United States decides to do in terms of watching the chemical weapons or making sure they're not used again.

Sputnik: Is the audience in the United States confused as we are and in Russian, and Europe as well, there's a lot of conversation with regards to this in the UK as well, President Trump came to power with the commitment to say that he was not going to get involved with these kinds of conflicts in Syria, obviously, his hands must be tied with regard to that because that's exactly what he's affected really, although there's a lot of pressure from the experts and these executives that surround President Trump, what's the general feeling back in the United States regarding this?

Dr. Jeanne Zaino: The Washington Post has a story out today which describes the president as a reluctant pox saying that he has battled his top aids on Russia and lost, that he wanted to take a less strident in approached in several areas in the last few weeks that have soiled the relationship. For example, the expulsion of Russian diplomats.

In this Sept. 17, 2015 file photo, Saudi security forces take part in a military parade in preparation for the annual Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. - Sputnik International
US Wants to Replace Its Troops in Syria With Gulf States' Militaries - Reports
The president didn't want to and was pushed into the expulsion, their reporting of the 60 and was furious when he found out that our allies have expelled far fewer. We understand that he was not initially in favor of the strikes but had been pushed into those as well, so he is I think reflective of an almost huge divide in the Republican Party which is on the one hand the far-right is very opposed to the strikes, if you listen to the far-right they will say that there's no evidence of chemical weapons, they were staged, and you look at the more moderates in the party who are taking a tougher stance that they had going back to the Cold War and these kinds of issues. So you see an embattled Republican Party and the president almost caught right dead center in the middle of that.

Sputnik: What consequences could the prolonged US presence in Syria likely to have for the country? Is the American audience very negative about the situation? Do they want the troops out of Syria as much as the president? Is it the industrial military complex pressure being put to bear that is keeping these troops in Syria do you think?

People stand in front of damaged buildings, in the town of Douma, the site of a suspected chemical weapons attack, near Damascus, Syria, Monday, April 16, 2018 - Sputnik International
WHO Denies Team Carried Out Mission to Syria's Douma on Tuesday - Spokesman
Dr. Jeanne Zaino: I do. President Obama was equally reluctant to take a firm stance on Syria and he kept talking about pulling troops out, so I do think that on both the left and the right you see the anti-war "America First" as the president calls it momentum, and it's in the moderate middle where you see a step back and people saying it's ok, we can be involved, we have to have a hand in this in someway, but I do think as the elections get close this is going to be a key issue, and I think it's an issue that the president, in particular, is going to get hit on from the right. Key places like Fox News and others are beginning to increase the drumbeat on the fact that we shouldn't be there, we should pull the troops out, I think we'll see the left join that at some point and then the president can be strangled in the middle on that.

Sputnik: The other interesting thing is that so there still no actual solid proof that there were chemical weapons or there was chemical nerve agents used in Syria adding of the fact that we have these strikes on these chemical factories or assets, or locations, and then one person in Britain actually said that well if there was a strike on these particular chemical factories or locations surely there would be chemical nerve agents in the area, it would've affected so many, hundreds of the local population, so how could that be relevant, how can that be accurate, it's mired in controversy the whole story with regard to these attacks, isn't it?

Dr. Jeanne Zaino: It absolutely is and I think there is from the distant point of the United States public, what we're seeing is an almost initial, and we see this a lot of times in these cases, sense of we will go along and support the administration when they're telling us this happened, but you do again see on the edges an increasing drumbeat of people saying wait a minute, hold on, where is the evidence, where is the proof of this, why would they have done this if it would impact their own troops, how could they have done this, they can't control the airflow, how could they have done this in such a calculated way that it only impacted a certain number of people and not their own troops.

*Daesh (Islamic state/ISIS/ISIL/IS) is a terrorist group banned in Russia

The views and opinions expressed by Dr. Jeanne Zaino are those of the speaker and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.



To participate in the discussion
log in or register
Заголовок открываемого материала