U.S. Airstrikes in Syria: Fallout Around the World

■ The United States fired 59 Tomahawk missiles on Thursday at an airfield in Syria from which officials said a chemical weapons attack originated this week.

■ Russian forces, which were in the area, were given no more than 90 minutes’ notice of the attack.

■ President Trump drew support from Republicans who had opposed plans for a 2013 strike.

The United Nations Security Council met at 11:30 a.m. Friday to discuss the American strikes in Syria. The meeting was requested by Bolivia, a temporary member of the Security Council and something of a thorn in the American side.

The United States, which this month leads the Council, had little choice but to agree — but not without a bite. The United States ambassador, Nikki R. Haley, said it would have to be a public session, and not behind closed doors, as she said Bolivia had wanted. “Any country that chooses to defend the atrocities of the Syrian regime will have to do so in full public view, for all the world to hear,” she said in a statement.

Bolivia’s ambassador, Sacha Sergio Llorentty Solíz, vigorously disputed Ms. Haley’s claim and said he welcomed an open briefing. He said the American strikes violated international law, and he criticized the United States for rebuffing efforts to negotiate a Security Council resolution to back an independent investigation into the chemical attacks. He accused the United States of acting as “attorney, judge and executioner.”

Speaking to reporters before the Council meeting began, the French envoy, François Delattre, called the strike “legitimate,” while his British counterpart, Matthew Rycroft, said his government fully supported the American strikes.

— Somini Sengupta from the United Nations

For all its bluster, Russia basically has two options. It can either treat the attack as a one-time episode, or it can escalate the situation militarily with the United States. That military option would bring unpredictable consequences, so it is likely to be rejected, though Moscow canceled a military coordination agreement in Syria.

Instead, Moscow is likely to hope the storm passes and accept the attack as a one-time marker by Mr. Trump that his policy differs from that of President Barack Obama. There will be endless Russian fulminating about violations of international law.

At the same time, President Vladimir V. Putin will not welcome renewed American arguments that the Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad, must go. Mr. Assad is Mr. Putin’s ticket to a wider Russian role in the Middle East, and he has said repeatedly that toppling Mr. Assad would only fuel chaos and enable Islamic extremists.

— Neil MacFarquhar from Moscow

Some top Republicans who were generally not supportive of Mr. Obama’s more amorphous plans to strike Syria in 2013 showed strong support for the Trump administration’s airstrikes on Thursday.

“I support both the action and the objective,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said on the Senate floor on Friday morning. He added, “In the days ahead, I am committed to working with the administration to continue developing a counter-ISIL strategy that hastens the defeat of ISIL and establishes objectives for dealing with the Assad regime in a manner that preserves the institutions of government in an effort to prevent a failed state.” ISIL is one of the acronyms for the Islamic State.

In 2013, after an earlier chemical weapons attack by the Assad government, Mr. McConnell broke with other congressional leaders who supported a strike on Syria. Mr. Assad’s “chemical weapons use does not represent a national security risk to the United States,” Mr. McConnell said at the time.

Mr. McConnell said a briefing on Syria for senators would be held later on Friday.

— Jennifer Steinhauer from Washington

Comments are closed.