At an April 27 hearing at the House Foreign Affairs Committee on policy options in Syria titled “After the Missile Strikes,” Charles Lister, a Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute, cautioned the dais on the need to “not rush Raqqa.” On May 9, the Pentagon announced that indeed U.S. President Donald Trump intends to do just that.
Latest in Syria
Under what conditions may a state lawfully intervene—or otherwise act—in relation to armed conflict in Syria?
The Trump drama so consumes us that we cannot even respond to hints of mass murder.
What’s the Legal Basis for the Syria Strikes? The Administration Must Acknowledge Limits on its Power to Start a War
Project Democracy has filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the President's legal justification for his administration's strikes against a Syrian airbase.
Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) have sent a letter to President Trump requesting information on the administration's domestic legal justification for the recent airstrikes in Syria, "in particular an explanation of whether this action expands ... precedents for action under Article II." The letter is available here and below.
Join the Hoover Institution this Thursday, April 27, from 5-7 pm for a panel discussion with the White Helmets on their humanitarian efforts in Syria.
To the extent that domestic political considerations may constrain or embolden the Trump Administration's foreign policy, it is worth considering recent polling data on the Administration’s airstrikes.
If the Trump administration is looking to escalate in Syria, it should consider working with Israel and Jordan in the country's south.
Rather than help curtail the slaughter and pave the way for serious peace talks, limited strikes risk re-empowering Assad while undermining the credibility of President Trump.
Those proposing an erosion of the U.N. Charter system in response to the Syrian airstrikes need to consider carefully whether the international legal system is strong enough to make nuanced use-of-force distinctions.