Finally, a missile strike occurred in Syria, with France and Britain running under the US-led coalition. However, as evidenced by the evidence, the level of this presence was negligible, and the main load Was in the hands of the US forces. During the operation, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense, 103 missiles were fired for targets in Syria, 71 of which were destroyed by the Syrian air defence before the target, a significant figure.
Theresa May, after the operation, announced that the military strike against Syria was limited and targeted to reduce the Syrian regime’s ability to develop and use chemical weapons. Although it has been mandated, experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will begin their research work on alleged chemical attacks in Syria today.
Recent developments over the past few days showed unbalanced positions on the side of the coalition, especially within the United States, and a news disagreement between the Secretary of Defense (James Mattis) and National Security Adviser (John Bolton) on the response to Syria has been published, indicating that There is no clear and specific strategy following this operation.
The US-backed coalition missile strike was likely to be supported by verbal and practical support from some Western parties that would open their hands for bargaining against Trump. In fact, the West, with the accompaniment of Trump on this issue, is looking for his flexibility and with the West in relation to Iran’s nuclear deal.
On the other hand, and in general, this not-so-effective attack can only be considered as a reaction to the failure of US-Western armed groups in the Eastern Sub-Sahara, which lost one of the most important anti-government bases in Syria and, naturally, in the coming negotiations The Syrian government’s hand will be taller with its allies.