How have we gotten tothis point? Here's a brief history of some of the major developments in the Syrian civil war as they pertain to the United States:

Dec. 18, 2010: Revolution in Tunisia sparks an "Arab Spring" of popular revolt against governments across the Middle East and North Africa. Syria's protests begin in March of the next year, when demonstrators angry over the arrest of schoolchildren who had painted anti-government graffiti, take to the streets. They are ultimately quelled by the army of President Bashar al-Assad.

Aug. 20, 2012: As the conflict begins to grow into a civil war with multiple factions, U.S. President Barack Obama warns that if Assad uses chemical weapons "on the ground" it would cross a "red line" with the United States.

December 23, 2012: The first of several suspected chemical attacks take place in Syria. The United Nations concludes nearly a year later that Assad is using chemical weapons, including nerve agent sarin, with children among the casualties.

June 15, 2013: Private citizen Donald Trump, almost exactly two years from announcing his candidacy for president, tweets, "We should stay the hell out of Syria."

August, 2013: A Syrian chemical weapons attack is blamed for as many as 1,700 civilian deaths.

September, 2013: Instead of acting on his threat about crossing a red line, President Obama gambles on peace by entering a three-party deal with Russia under which Syria commits to removing or destroying its chemical stockpile by the next year.

September 2015: Russia puts its military might behind the Assad regine. In October it adds cruise missiles to the effort.

November, 2015: On the campaign trail, Trump says he's open to sending ground troops to Syria in order to fight ISIS.

November, 2016: After winning the election, the President-elect Trump says U.S. efforts in Syria should target ISIS. If the United States targeted the Assad regime, he says, "we end up fighting Russia."

April 6, 2017: The United Stateslaunches 59 Tomahawk cruises missiles against Syria in response to further chemical weapons attacks.

April 11, 2018: Following yet another suspected chemical attack by Assad, Trump warned that missiles "will be coming" to Syria. The next day he said, via Twitter, "Could be very soon or not so soon at all!"

April 13, 2018: Trump announces "precision strikes" against the Assad regime in response to the latest chemical attack, which he called "evil" and "despicable." "These are crimes of a monster," he said. referring to Assad.</s>BEIRUT (AP) — Loud explosions rocked Syria's capital and filled the sky with heavy smoke early Saturday after U.S. President Donald Trump announced airstrikes in retaliation for the country's alleged use of chemical weapons. Syrian television reported that air defenses responded to the attack.

Associated Press reporters saw smoke rising from east Damascus and the sky turned orange. A huge fire could be seen from a distance to the east. Syrian television reported that a scientific research center had been hit.

Syrian media reported that air defenses hit 13 rockets south of Damascus. After the attack ceased and the early morning skies went dark once more, vehicles with loudspeakers roamed the streets of Damascus blaring nationalist songs.

"Good souls will not be humiliated," Syria's presidency tweeted after airstrikes began.

Trump announced Friday night that the three allies had launched military strikes to punish President Bashar Assad for the alleged chemical weapons use and to prevent him from doing it again.

The U.S. president said the U.S. is prepared to "sustain" pressure on Assad until he ends what the president called a criminal pattern of killing his own people with internationally banned chemical weapons. It was not immediately clear whether Trump meant the allied military operation would extend beyond an initial nighttime round of missile strikes.

Trump said the joint attack was expected to include barrages of cruise missiles launched from outside Syrian airspace. He described the main aim as establishing "a strong deterrent" against chemical weapons use.

The Syrian government has repeatedly denied any use of banned weapons.

The decision to strike, after days of deliberations, marked Trump's second order to attack Syria; he authorized a barrage of Tomahawk cruise missiles to hit a single Syrian airfield in April 2017 in retaliation for Assad's use of sarin gas against civilians.

Trump chastised Syria's two main allies, Russia and Iran, for their roles in supporting "murderous dictators," and noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin had guaranteed a 2013 international agreement for Assad to get rid of all of his chemical weapons. He called on Moscow to change course and join the West in seeking a more responsible regime in Damascus.

The allied operation comes a year after the U.S. missile strike that Trump said was meant to deter Assad from further use of chemical weapons. Since that did not work, a more intense attack would aim to degrade his ability to carry out further such attacks, and would try to do this by hitting Syrian aircraft, military depots and chemical facilities, among other things.

The one-off missile strike in April 2017 targeted the airfield from which the Syrian aircraft had launched their gas attack. But the damage was limited, and a defiant Assad returned to episodic use of chlorine and perhaps other chemicals.

Friday's strikes appear to signal Trump's willingness to draw the United States more deeply into the Syrian conflict. The participation of British and French forces enables Trump to assert a wider international commitment against the use of chemical weapons, but the multi-pronged attack carries the risk of Russian retaliation.

In his nationwide address, Trump stressed that he has no interest in a longtime fight with Syria.

"America does not seek an indefinite presence in Syria under no circumstances," he said. "As other nations step up their contributions, we look forward to the day when we can bring our warriors home."

The U.S. has about 2,000 troops on the ground in Syria as advisers to a makeshift group of anti-Islamic State fighters known as the Syrian Democratic Forces. They are in eastern Syria, far from Damascus. A U.S.-led coalition has been conducting airstrikes in Syria since September 2014 as part of a largely successful effort to break the IS grip on both Syria and Iraq.</s>U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said President Donald Trump told her Saturday the U.S. remains "locked and loaded" if Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad uses chemical weapons to attack his own people again.

"Last night, we obliterated the major research facility that it used to assemble weapons of mass murder," Haley said at U.N. Security Council meeting called by Russia, which has condemned the Friday night strike on Syria's chemical weapon capabilities by the U.S., France and Britain. "I spoke to the president this morning and he said if the Syrian regime uses this poisonous gas again, the United States is locked and loaded."

"When our our president draws a red line, our president enforces the red line," Haley added.

Addressing reports that Russia has stepped up efforts to spread misinformation after the strike, Haley stated that "pictures of dead children were not fake news" and said there is evidence the Syrian regime was behind the most recent attack. Haley said that past Russian actions through the Security Council had thwarted attempts to rein in the Assad's regime's use of chemical weapons, giving the "green light" to the Syrian leader.

"Chemical weapons are a threat to us all," Haley said. "They are unique threat, a type of weapon so evil that the international community agreed they must be banned. We cannot stand by and let Russia trash every international norm that we stand for."

Pentagon officials said Saturday that the strike dealt a crippling blow to Syria's future capabilities for using chemical weapons. Joint Staff Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie told reporters the U.S-led operation would “set the Syrian chemical weapons program back by years."

Trump congratulated U.S. and allied forces for the "perfectly executed strike," adding that it was "Mission Accomplished!"</s>Brussels: The US, UK and France launched strikes on Syria a week after US President Donald Trump said there would be a “big price” to pay for the apparent use of chemical weapons by President Bashar al-Assad’s forces in the town of Douma, an attack that killed scores of civilians. Here’s what we know and what’s still to come:

What did they attack?

Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Theresa May released statements after the attack had begun, saying the missile strikes were focused on chemical weapons sites.

General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that naval and air forces struck three primary targets, including a chemical weapons research facility outside Damascus and a weapons storage area near Homs.

The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the Syrian war through activists on the ground, said installations belonging to the country’s elite Republican Guards were also targeted. Russia’s defence ministry said more than 100 cruise missiles were fired.

“This was not geared towards weakening Assad’s conventional military capabilities,” said Kamran Bokhari, a senior fellow with the Center for Global Policy in Washington. It was “a little more than the symbolic strike from last year but steering clear of any major operation.”

Syria said the strikes failed to achieve their goal and breached international law. Syrian air defences hit several incoming missiles, state-run media said. Analysts and diplomats said the strike was unlikely to shake Assad’s hold on power or change the trajectory of the conflict.

The attack “was a victory for Syria,” former lawmaker Sharif Shehadeh said by phone from Damascus. “Instead of weakening the government, it only made it stronger,” he said. “Trump did it to save face.”

Assad’s allies, including Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah group, also condemned the strikes. Iran’s Supreme Leader called the attack a crime and the country’s Revolutionary Guard Corps said it gave “the resistance a more open hand,” although it did not threaten to retaliate.

Are the attacks over?

May in her statement called it a “limited and targeted strike.” US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis said that “right now, this is a one-time shot and I believe it has sent a very strong message to dissuade him, to deter him.” The UK defence ministry said the strikes were “successful.”

Still, Trump warned in his televised address of a readiness to “sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents,” though he didn’t specify what that meant.

Russia denounced the attacks as aggression against its ally, but there was no sign of an immediate military response.

“Our worst apprehensions have come true. Our warnings have been left unheard,” Anatoly Antonov, Russia’s ambassador to the US, wrote on Facebook. “Insulting the President of Russia is unacceptable and inadmissible,” he added, an apparent reference to Trump’s mention of President Vladimir Putin in his speech.

The Kremlin released a statement from Putin saying the strike was an “act of aggression against a sovereign state which is in the front line in the fight against terrorism,” and that there was no proof a chemical weapons attack had taken place.

The strikes appeared to have taken place far from Russia’s bases near the Syrian coast. US officials said they gave Russia no specific warnings of the attacks or the targets, but used the usual hotline with Moscow’s military to ensure the airspace was clear. Still, French defence minister Florence Parly told reporters that Russian authorities were warned ahead of time, as proof the action would be limited to specific targets.

French authorities said the allies don’t seek any military escalation, nor confrontation with Russia. Macron, who called Putin on Friday to discuss the situation, still plans to travel to a security conference in St Petersburg in May, where they are expected to meet, an official said.

What about the UK?

May on Saturday made her case for action in the face of opposition from much of the public and the Labour Party, saying in a further statement it was highly likely Assad’s regime had used chemical weapons.

“We would have preferred an alternative path, but in this case there was none,” May said. “We cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalized.”

She authorized the strikes without parliamentary backing and it’s not clear she would have got it if she’d sought it. Parliament refused UK participation in a planned punitive raid on Syria in 2013, one of the reasons then-US President Barack Obama called it off.

May will address Parliament — where she doesn’t have a majority — next week. Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong anti-war campaigner, has accused May of “waiting for instructions from President Donald Trump.”

While Germany did not take part in the action against Syria, Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Saturday she supported steps taken by the allies.

“Military action was necessary and appropriate to safeguard the effectiveness of the international ban on the use of chemical weapons, and to warn the Syrian regime of further violations,” she said in a statement. “Germany will resolutely support all diplomatic efforts in this direction.”

Pentagon officials said they’ll provide more details about the strikes and their effectiveness at a briefing Saturday morning in Washington. Russia said it was calling an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss the attack.

In a written statement on Friday, Macron said France’s parliament will hold a debate on the intervention. Under the French constitution, parliament must be informed within three days of all major military operations, but only gets a binding vote if they last more than four months. Macron’s advisers said at a briefing on Saturday the strikes took place in a legal framework. Bloomberg</s>While Donald Trump is vowing to act should chemical attacks in Syria continue, he has made clear he does not want to deepen US involvement in the area.

"Mission accomplished!" Donald Trump tweeted the morning after the night before.

"A perfectly executed strike," he said, in reference to the three-country mission that took out chemical weapons research, development and storage facilities in Syria.

The US and its allies, France and Britain, have drawn a new red line on chemical weapons, but the Pentagon admits that capacity in that area still remains.

The strikes also did not target the Bashar al-Assad regime's use or access to conventional weapons.

At a Pentagon briefing, director of the Joint Chiefs Lieutenant General Kenneth F McKenzie said that the strikes were precise, overwhelming and effective, but that some of Syria's chemical weapons infrastructure remained.

"I think we've dealt them a severe blow," he said.

"[But] I would say there's still a residual element of the Syrian program that's out there.

At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, the United States ambassador Nikki Haley warned that further strikes would come if chemical attacks continued.

"I spoke to the President this morning and he said, 'If the Syrian regime uses this poisonous gas again, the United States is locked and loaded'," she told the meeting.

The US appeared to have drawn that line this time last year, when it launched 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria in response to a similar attack.

The attack at Douma was the 10th since that unilateral US missile strike in 2017, and while Mr Trump is vowing to act should such attacks continue, he has made clear he does not want to deepen US involvement in Syria.

Just a few days ago, he voiced his desire to pull US troops out altogether. Sources suggest he wants them out within six months.

On that basis, some of the reaction to the latest mission has been muted amid concern it will again be relegated to mere symbolism rather than bringing about any real change in Syria.

At the UN, Russia accused the US, UK and France of "hooliganism in international relations", again claiming the attack at Douma was staged as an excuse for an attack on the Assad regime.

The scientific facilities targeted in Syria are used only for peaceful means, the Russian ambassador claimed, calling for a vote for the allied group to immediately end its aggressive actions.

US Senator Ben Sasse, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued a statement after the Pentagon disclosed that Russia had increased its online troll activity by 2,000 per cent in the last 24 hours.

"Russia is investing significant resources to create propaganda and disinformation.

"Kinetic, cyber, and information contests will overlap more and more in the coming years.

"The fog of war will not be limited to our situation rooms and battlefields; our enemies will work to create confusion and distrust among Americans here at home."

Several Democrats have questioned the administration's actions without congressional approval.</s>U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said Sunday that U.S. troops will remain in Syria until Washington accomplishes certain key goals, indicating the Trump administration is preparing for a long-term military presence in the war-torn country.

Speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” Haley said President Donald Trump had identified three objectives for Syria: the total defeat of the Islamic State, ensuring chemical weapons can’t be used in any way that harms U.S. interests, and establishing “good grounds” to watch what Iran is doing in the region.

The Trump administration would like to see U.S. troops come home but “we’re not going to leave until we know we have accomplished those things,” Haley told host Chris Wallace.

Haley’s comments mark a complete reversal from Trump’s own public statements on Syria policy just weeks ago.

Earlier this month, Trump he told an audience of supporters that U.S. troops were on the verge of completely defeating ISIS and would be coming home “very soon.”

The president had also expressed a desire to withdraw from Syria in meetings with national security staff, telling military commanders to prepare to finish the anti-ISIS mission in six months or less.

That narrow focus on ISIS appears to have broadened in the wake of a suspected chemical weapons attack by the Syrian regime against civilians on April 7.

The U.S., along with Britain and France, launched missile strikes late Friday against Syrian targets in retaliation for the attack, and Trump said Western allies were prepared to “sustain” the response to prevent Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from using chemical weapons again.

A third goal, countering Iran’s ambitions in Syria, also points to an indefinite U.S. military presence there. Though Trump always been hawkish on Iran, particularly in regards to the 2015 nuclear deal, he has recently become more vocal in calling out the Iranian regime in the context of the Syrian war.

In his address announcing the missile strikes Friday night, Trump said Iran bore responsibility for the chemical attack as much as the Assad regime and its ally Russia.

The president also tied the American military mission in Syria to beating back Iranian influence there, saying the U.S. would work to “ensure that Iran does not profit from the eradication of ISIS.”

The Trump administration is “very invested” in the Geneva peace talks, Haley said Sunday, referring to ongoing negotiations aimed at bringing Syria’s seven year civil war to an end. American troops will stay in Syria until U.S. allies show they are “doing more” to reach a political solution to the conflict.

RELATED: Ryan Advises Against Firing Mueller: ‘Not in the President’s Interests’

“Be very clear, if we leave, when we leave, it will be because we know that everything is moving forward,” Haley told Wallace.

This story originally appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below.</s>The secretary of state John Kerry responded with a furious speech. “As previous storms in history have gathered, when unspeakable crimes were within our power to stop them, we have been warned against the temptations of looking the other way,” he said. “History is full of leaders who have warned against inaction, indifference, and especially against silence when it mattered most.” He noted also that America’s credibility rested upon its willingness to take action against Assad. “It is directly related to our credibility and whether countries still believe the United States when it says something. They are watching to see if Syria can get away with it, because then maybe they too can put the world at greater risk.” It appeared that Kerry did not doubt that Obama would enforce the red line, and soon Obama would reinforce that perception with his own statement from the White House. “It’s important for us to recognise that when over 1000 people are killed, including hundreds of innocent children, through the use of a weapon that 98 or 99 per cent of humanity says should not be used even in war, and there is no action, then we’re sending a signal that that international norm doesn’t mean much. And that is a danger to our national security,” he said. But in the days after the statement Obama softened. According to Jeffrey Goldberg’s essay on the period in The Atlantic magazine Obama had come to view a military strike unsanctioned by either international law or Congress - and without popular support from the American people - as a mistake. Since then other critics have noted that by then his administration had already begun to focus on the Iran nuclear deal, and Iran backed Assad.

Either way, Obama’s concerns were compounded when British parliament failed to give David Cameron its support for an attack. Further, Obama feared that any strike on chemical stockpiles might release plumes of lethal chemicals, killing even more civilians. To the dismay of many – including allies and senior voices in his administration – he backed down, delaying any action by asking Congress to authorise the use of force. That was when Vladimir Putin – ally to both Iran and Syria – stepped in. At his instigation and with his aid America and Russia engineered a deal whereby Assad would agree to surrender chemical weapons stockpiles for destruction. Supporters cheered the deal as a victory for peaceful pragmatism over force, critics viewed it as a surrender of American authority. Russia, it appears, took it as a signal that it could fill an American void in Syria. In February 2015 the Russian parliament sanctioned its own use of military action in parliament, and soon its forces were targeting both rebels supported by the US as well as members of ISIS in support of Assad, changing the course of the war. Any hope of a regime change backed by the west vanished. Then in 2017, two months after Donald Trump’s inauguration, a further 74 people were killed in a rebel-held district by chemical weapons unleashed in a Syrian government airstrike.

A couple of short years after crafting a deal to have Assad surrender his chemical weapons, Putin was offering him protection as he deployed them again. Two days after the attack Trump ordered a missile strike, unleashing 59 cruise missiles at the airbase from the which the chemical attack had been launched. “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons," he said at the time. The attack was unilateral, but done after consultation with – and the support of – American allies. Russia described the strike as an act of aggression which “substantially impaired” relations between the two powers. Missiles streak across the Damascus skyline as the U.S. launches an attack on Syria targeting different parts of the capital. Today relations between the two nations are even worse, both despite and because of the evidence that Russia meddled in the US election in an effort to support Trump’s campaign.

While Trump has failed to personally condemn the Russian actions in the election – or the recent use of a nerve agent in England – the broader machinery of the US government has responded, most recently with the expulsions of diplomats. Some analysts have fretted that we are veering into Cold War without any of the established mechanisms for deconfliction and back-channel communication in place. The difficult – even dangerous – relationship between the two powers has made military calculous behind the strikes even more complicated. To demonstrate to Syria, Russia and Iran that the goal of the attack was to deter the regime from using illegal weapons, the strikes needed to be confined to targets related to the use of the weapons. Yet to achieve deterrence they also needed to be broader and more destructive than the 2017 strikes. By necessity then the targets included not only airfields, but sites thought to have been used for the development and storage of Assad’s chemical stockpile. This increased the risk of casualties among both civilians and Russians, and in turn the risk of escalation. The US Secretary of Defence, Jim Mattis, emphasised to the media after the attack, that planners did all they could to avoid such casualties, but he also said Russia was not notified of the attack beforehand.

It is also significant that the attack was conducted in conjunction with Britain and France, signalling to Syria an international resolve that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated, and to Russia that the western order might be frayed, but is not toothless. It is not yet clear how the strike will leave relations between the US and its western allies and Russia. In her statement on the attack the British leader Theresa May was careful to make it clear that the intent of the attack was specific and limited. "We cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised within Syria, on the streets of the UK or anywhere else in our world," she said. "This is not about intervening in a civil war. It is not about a regime change. "It is a limited and targeted strike that does not further escalate tensions in the region.”</s>Pope Francis told the faithful in St. Peter's Square that he is "deeply disturbed" by the international community's failure to come up with a common response to the crisis in Syria and other parts of the world.

"Despite the tools available to the international community, it is difficult to agree on a common action toward peace in Syria or other regions of the world," the pope told a crowd of 30,000 after his traditional Sunday blessing.

Francis called on "all people of goodwill" to join him in praying for peace, and appealed to political leaders to help "justice prevail."

The pope spoke after airstrikes by the United States, France and Britain aimed at taking out Syria's chemical weapons capacity. That followed a suspected poison gas attack by Syrian government forces on a rebel-held Damascus suburb that killed dozens, including children.

The suffering in Syria has been top among the pope's concerns. Francis last Sunday said "nothing can justify" the use of chemical weapons and called for negotiations.

"There is not a good or a bad war, and nothing can justify such instruments that exterminate defenseless people and populations," the pope said. "Let's pray that the responsible politicians and military leaders choose another path: that of negotiations, the only one that can bring peace."</s>VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis told the faithful in St. Peter’s Square that he is “deeply disturbed” by the international community’s failure to come up with a common response to the crisis in Syria and other parts of the world.

“Despite the tools available to the international community, it is difficult to agree on a common action toward peace in Syria or other regions of the world,” the pope told a crowd of 30,000 after his traditional Sunday blessing.

Francis called on “all people of goodwill” to join him in praying for peace, and appealed to political leaders to help “justice prevail.”

The pope spoke after airstrikes by the United States, France and Britain aimed at taking out Syria’s chemical weapons capacity. That followed a suspected poison gas attack by Syrian government forces on a rebel-held Damascus suburb that killed dozens, including children.

The suffering in Syria has been top among the pope’s concerns. Francis last Sunday said “nothing can justify” the use of chemical weapons and called for negotiations.

“There is not a good or a bad war, and nothing can justify such instruments that exterminate defenseless people and populations,” the pope said. “Let’s pray that the responsible politicians and military leaders choose another path: that of negotiations, the only one that can bring peace.”</s>New York, April 15 (IANS) A protest against the US-led air strikes on Syria was held at the Union Square in New York city.

“I’m opposed to it. It’s another example of US imperial expansion in the Middle East,” said Gordon Barnes, an adjunct lecturer at Queens College, City University of New York.

Barnes, who joined the protest on Saturday, said he did not believe that military attacks will solve the problem in Syria and viewed the US military action as a disingenuous one, reports Xinhua news agency.

Asked about the refugee crisis that has aroused much controversy, Barnes said he was in favour of letting the refugees into the United States because the country is in part responsible for the crisis, not only in Syria, but also in other places around the world.

Like Barnes, many voiced concerns for the civilians affected by the air strikes in Syria.

“My heart goes out to the innocent Syrians who will suffer from this,” said a resident of New York city.

Others questioned the legitimacy of the attack.

On Friday night, the US, France and the UK launched coordinated strikes in Syria as President Donald Trump sought to “punish” his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad for a suspected chemical attack in Douma, Eastern Ghouta, that killed over 70 people.

The strikes targeted three facilities associated with Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, including a scientific research facility around Damascus, a chemical weapons storage facility around Homs alleged to be used for sarin gas and a nearby command post, according to the Pentagon.

Russia has reacted strongly to the air strikes and warned of “consequences”.

After the strikes were launched, the New York City Police Department said in a statement that counterterrorism officers have been deployed in and around the city.

However, it assured citizens that “there is no nexus to New York City, nor are there any credible threats to New York City, at this time”.
U.S. President Donald Trump warns Syria's government that the U.S. is "locked and loaded" to strike again if Syria were to carry out new chemical attacks.