Skip to content

The stinking hypocrisy of Trumps attack on Syria

Marxist Theory · 2017-04-07

Core Argument

The article argues that Trump's 2017 missile strike on Syria was not a principled response to chemical weapons use but a cynical, calculated manoeuvre by a faction of the US ruling class. The stated humanitarian justification is exposed as a pretext: the attack served to reassert US imperialist dominance in Syria, signal to Russia that Washington remains "in the game", and disrupt the Assad-Russia-Iran axis at a moment when Assad held the military advantage. The chemical weapons incident itself is treated as unproven and opportunistically weaponised for propaganda purposes. The central thesis is that US imperialism acts not out of concern for Syrian lives but to defend its own geopolitical and class interests, and that the left must oppose such interventions unconditionally rather than choosing sides among rival imperialist powers.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis is grounded in the classical Marxist theory of imperialism, drawing on Lenin's understanding of interimperialist rivalry as the driving force behind great-power conflict. The article treats the Syrian war not as a humanitarian crisis requiring external intervention but as a theatre of competition between imperialist blocs — the US and its regional allies (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan) versus the Russia-Iran-Assad axis. This framing rejects both liberal interventionism and the notion of a "lesser evil" among imperialist powers. The argument also reflects the Marxist position that the state serves the ruling class: Trump's policy reversal is explained not by personal moral awakening but by pressure from sections of the US bourgeoisie who opposed rapprochement with Russia. The piece implicitly draws on the concept of the permanent arms economy and the drive to expand spheres of influence as capitalism enters its period of decay. It sits firmly within the Trotskyist tradition's insistence on revolutionary defeatism — the enemy is at home — and its categorical opposition to supporting "progressive" imperialism against "reactionary" rivals.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article responds to a specific event: the 7 April 2017 US Tomahawk missile strike on Al Shayrat airbase in Homs, following a chemical weapons incident in Khan Shaykhun, Idlib province, four days earlier. The piece situates this within the broader trajectory of the Syrian civil war: Assad's forces, backed by Russia and Iran, had just recaptured Aleppo in December 2016, shifting the military balance decisively in their favour. The article notes that a Saudi and CIA-backed offensive towards Hama had recently failed, leaving the Islamist opposition — dominated by Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), the Syrian wing of Al Qaeda — in a weak position. The strike is therefore interpreted as an attempt by the hawkish wing of US imperialism to prevent Assad's victory from being consolidated, to divide the Russia-Iran-Assad alliance, and to strengthen Washington's negotiating position in future talks. The piece also draws parallels to the Iraq War (WMD pretext), the ongoing devastation of Mosul by US-led coalition forces, and the Saudi-led war in Yemen with US and UK logistical support — all to demonstrate the selective, self-serving nature of imperialist "humanitarianism."

Where the Argument Continues

The article is a short, immediate response and does not develop several lines of analysis. It does not examine the internal dynamics of the US ruling class — which factions pushed for the strike, how Trump's base responded, or the role of the military-industrial complex. It does not explore the political economy of the Syrian war: the role of oil pipelines, the reconstruction contracts at stake, or the deeper economic drivers of imperialist intervention in the region. The argument about the "dead end of world capitalism" is asserted but not elaborated in terms of overaccumulation, the falling rate of profit, or the crisis of neoliberal globalisation. These themes are developed in other IDOM articles on the Syrian conflict and in broader Marxist analyses of the Middle East. The piece also does not address the strategic question of what a revolutionary working-class alternative in Syria would look like — this is taken up in IDOM's longer analyses of the Syrian revolution and the role of the Kurdish movement.

Connections

  • Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism — the theoretical foundation for understanding interimperialist rivalry as the driver of war.
  • Trotsky, The War and the International — the classic statement of revolutionary defeatism and opposition to "defence of the fatherland" under imperialism.
  • IDOM articles on Syria — particularly those analysing the 2011 uprising, the role of the Kurdish forces, and the shifting balance of forces between Assad, the Islamist opposition, and external powers.
  • IDOM articles on US imperialism in the Middle East — including analyses of the Iraq War, the Libya intervention, and the war in Yemen.
  • Against the Stream episodes — the RCI's podcast has covered the Syrian conflict extensively, including the chemical weapons issue and the role of the White Helmets.
  • The work of Gilbert Achcar — particularly The People Want and his analyses of the Syrian conflict from a Marxist perspective, which share the article's rejection of both Assad and the Islamist opposition.

Key Quotes

  1. "Without any enquiry and not even bothering to go get the backing of any international institution, in a complete reversal of his earlier stated position of not intervening in Syria, Trump has launched a unilateral strike against forces of the Syrian government."

  2. "Of course the Assad regime is fully capable at carrying out such an attack. But at this given point it has nothing to gain from using chemical weapons. It has the upper hand in the civil war, thanks to Russia's backing."

  3. "It was a cynical and calculated move with the sole purpose of defending the narrow interests of the US ruling class and those of its allies, and to send a signal, in particular to Russia, that US imperialism is still 'in the game' in Syria."

  4. "As if neverending war, the death of hundreds of thousands of children and the destruction of the very basis for civilised life is somehow morally acceptable, as long as this killing is only done with swords, guns, bombs, aerial strikes, and sanctions."

  5. "The only real solution is a clear independent class position. To the workers and youth in the west, who genuinely want to end the misery and barbarism in the Middle East, we must say clearly: the enemy is at home!"

  6. "What is needed is not to expand the war in the Middle East, but to bring it back home, in the form of class struggle against the ruling classes. A ruling class which plays no productive role but which spreads terror and destruction everywhere."