简体中文
For weeks Syrian officials have slammed U.S. plans to strike the Islamic State (IS) militant group on its soil, saying the move violates it sovereignty. But some analysts say Damascus has toned down its fiery rhetoric and now even tacitly supports the airstrikes against the armed group that has been wreaking havoc on the region.
Earlier on Tuesday, the U.S. military launched airstrikes against IS positions in Syria's northern province of al-Raqqa and the eastern province of Deir al-Zour, the Pentagon said.
Syria responded by announcing that it was informed about the attacks beforehand, adding that the administration of President Bashar al-Assad stood by any international effort to eradicate the "terrorist groups" from the country.
"Of course the Syrian administration tacitly approves the airstrikes, otherwise it would have publicly condemned the strikes and declared that such attack is a violation to its sovereignty," Hamdi Abdullah, a political researcher told Xinhua.
Abdullah said that informing Damascus about the airstrike beforehand has allowed the Syrian government to avoid confronting the issue of sovereignty violation.
The political researcher also highlighted the participation of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State as a benefit for Syria, emphasizing that Syria's Arab neighbors that have been supportive of the rebel groups before are now opposing the militant movements.
"When all of these countries that have been supportive to the radical rebels decide to battle them, the Syrian government benefits," Abdullah said.
Meanwhile, a leading political opposition group inside Syria said the U.S airstrikes could be useful in the battle against the Islamic State, but expressed skepticism over the long-term goals of such airstrikes.
Hasan Abdul-Azim, a left-wing activist and the general coordinator of the oppositional National Coordination Body (NCB), told Xinhua that his group did not reject the strikes and that they could be useful "because the Islamic State group is dangerous and threatens both Iraq and Syria, along with all of the region."
He noted, however, that his group has concerns that these airstrikes "are taking place without a Syrian national consensus on one hand and also without regulations from the United Nations on the other hand."
"We fear that such airstrikes could become a full blown aggression in the future against the Syrian state and the Syrian people alike," he said.
Other political figures inside Syria have voiced their ambiguity over the airstrikes.
"The airstrikes by the U.S.-led coalition don't bother Syria, but at the same time they don't please Syria, meaning that they should have coordinated with the Syrian government because it possesses information about the situation on ground in addition to the experience in anti-terror strategy," Sharif Shehadeh, a pro- Assad parliamentary member, told Xinhua.
Shehadeh added that the Assad administration will wait to see the results of the strikes. "We want to see whether these operations would shift the course of events, kill many of the Islamic State militants or strike all the depots of the IS," he said.
On the other hand, the parliamentarian said it would be a "big mistake if (the U.S.) thinks that it can carry out a full-blown military invasion in Syria akin to what it had done in Iraq because the whole region will burn."
Russia, Syria's powerful international ally, had a more decisive tone about Tuesday's airstrikes, demanding that any international moves to fight terrorist groups should be conducted within the framework of the international law.
"(International law) requires not just a formal warning about the strikes but a clear consent of the Syrian government or the UN Security Council's decision," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in an online statement.
