SYRIA

THESE are extremely dangerous times, more so than even during the years of the Cold War. Then, superpower tensions could be eased and constrained by hotline calls and summits such as those used to deliver arms reduction. The omnipresent threat of nuclear confrontation helped to concentrate the minds of the world’s leaders on peace not war.

Many of the old certainties have now gone with the complete erosion of the ideological battle-lines. These have been replaced with regional flash points, each with the potential to spill far beyond their own boundaries. The capacity of the Syrian civil war to draw other nations into its ghastly vortex has been apparent for some time. The risks are greater than ever.

. Related Lord Hague: We must act now to stop chemical warfare

The conflict now has NATO, Russia, Israel, Iran, Turkey (a NATO member but acting unilaterally and more in sync with Russia) and Saudi Arabia all involved to a greater or lesser extent, just at the very time when diplomatic communications with Moscow have irretrievably broken down for many other reasons – including electoral interference, cyber espionage and the chemical poisoning attack in Salisbury.

The apparent chemical weapons attack on Douma, a suburb of Damascus, has brought matters to a head. The U.S. had previously warned Assad to expect retaliation for breaching international law in this way and President Trump has already said there will be a heavy price to pay. He needs to make good on that threat otherwise it is meaningless. The American response needs to be surgical and proportionate.

It looks as if Israel has taken the opportunity to attack the Tiyas airbase in central Syria, which it has targeted before. This is by no means Israel’s first incursion into the civil war on self-defence grounds, but matters are complicated by Russian and Iranian backing for Syria’s despot leader. Tehran has already claimed that four Iranian nationals were killed in the raid on the airbase.

ON a visit to Denmark, the British Prime Minister said that, if chemical weapons were used, then the Syrian regime and their proxy backers must be held to account. But, how exactly? Russia denies a gas attack has even taken place and has threatened to retaliate if direct action is taken against Assad’s regime. With diplomatic missions being stripped down in the tit-for-tat expulsions of recent weeks, the scope for misunderstandings leading to a military clash is growing by the day. An end to the bloody civil war would clearly help calm matters; but, since Assad is winning, for what reason does he need to brook a political solution when he can use brute force to crush remaining rebel strongholds?

President Trump’s eagerness to pull out American forces has given the impression that the US has no long-term strategy for the region. Beyond pummelling ISIS and punishing Assad for breaching “red lines” over the use of chemical weapons, Washington does not wish to get involved in the Syrian imbroglio and Russia clearly knows it. The role of power-broker in Syria was ceded by Barack Obama in 2013 when he backed away from a threat to take military action in response to a sarin gas attack carried out by Assad’s air force.

America’s backtracking then was the baleful consequence of a vote in the British parliament against military action in Syria. Some may argue that Theresa May’s tough talking is unlikely to be backed up by British military action unless she can reverse that position.

It is telling, however, given this background that the first leader President Trump contacted to discuss the West’s response was not Theresa May but Emmanuel Macron of France, whom Washington presumably sees as a more reliable partner. France was also the lead country calling for the UN security council to meet to debate the Douma attack and its consequences. When Paris is the first port of call for an American president seeking an ally, the Syria conflict has shifted the balance of power in more ways than one.

Given the parlous state of UK-Russian relations, it might be tempting to let other European countries take the lead. But if the US and France are to act, Mrs May needs to ensure that the UK is not left on the sidelines unwilling to join in the punitive action she has rightly identified as being necessary.