To kick off a week-long trip to Washington, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri met with President Donald Trump on Tuesday to address common security threats and increased economic and security funding. Lebanon is an important U.S. ally in the fight against Islamic State. It also has taken in 1.5 million Syrian refugees, who now comprise about a quarter of its entire population.

But Lebanon is a land of contradictions, largely due to the outsized influence of Hezbollah–an Iranian-backed group that the U.S., the EU, and Israel all consider a terrorist organization–on its politics and security. President Michel Aoun is an ally of the militant group, which is fighting on the side of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, even while Lebanon absorbs scores of refugees displaced by Syria’s intractable civil war.

At a press conference on Tuesday, following a private meeting with Hariri, Trump seemed to fundamentally misunderstand Hezbollah’s role within Lebanon. He said: “Lebanon is on the front lines in the fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah.”

While the U.S. and its allies view the group as a terrorist outfit, Lebanon does not. In fact, Hezbollah, which is fighting ISIS in Syria on behalf of the Assad regime, enjoys broad support in Lebanon. Its priorities certainly diverge from those of the U.S.–it is an Iranian proxy force and has vowed to destroy Israel. But Hezbollah (“Party of God”) is key to stabilizing the country, Hariri said in remarks at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington on Wednesday.

Hariri said he has numerous differences with Hezbollah, but “one thing we agree on is that the national interest of Lebanon is to have stability and to have a government that is functional.” And despite Trump’s apparent confusion over Hezbollah, the “administration understand very well the position of Lebanon,” Hariri said.

U.S. lawmakers are currently considering sanctions against Hezbollah, and any Lebanese banks that do business with it. Hariri has opposed any effort to sanction Hezbollah, because he says it would cripple the country’s entire banking system.

The U.S.-Lebanon partnership remains vital, however. In April, the State Department announced it would provide an additional $167 million to Lebanon to help support Syrian refugees. Hariri, during Wednesday’s event, said Trump had promised $140 million more in aid.

“Our approach supporting the humanitarian needs of displaced Syrian citizens as close to their home country as possible is the best way to help most people,” Trump said in the Rose Garden on Tuesday. Aid for Syrian refugees in the U.S. will likely dry up soon. Earlier this month, the U.S. reached its 50,000-refugee limit for the year, a threshold Trump lowered from 100,000 as part of his travel ban that will be heard in the Supreme Court later this year.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lebanese PM Saad Hariri and Donald Trump Discuss ISIS, Syrian Refugees appeared first on Law Street.

Over the past few weeks and months, President Donald Trump’s military policy has begun to coalesce around a somewhat coherent idea: defer decision-making to the Pentagon. In contrast to its predecessor, the Trump Administration has taken a more hands-off approach to the ongoing conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen. The U.S. has had a footprint in all three battlefields for years. But the day-to-day operations since Trump took office have seemingly shifted from the White House to the Pentagon.

Afghanistan

Last week, the administration quietly announced it would increase the U.S. presence in Afghanistan by 3,000 to 5,000 troops. The precise number of troops, the White House said, would be determined by Defense Secretary James Mattis. The U.S. currently maintains a force of about 8,800 troops in Afghanistan, where they train and advise Afghan government forces in the 16-year battle against the Taliban.

Deferring such a decision to the Pentagon could reflect the inner conflict taking place within the White House. Steven Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, favors an isolationist approach, and would like to see the U.S. stay out of global conflicts. Others, like Mattis and National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, favor a strong U.S. presence in places like Syria and Afghanistan.

Still, some see the Pentagon’s longer leash as a reflection of the administration’s lack of a coherent longterm strategy. In a statement released Monday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said “six months into the new administration, it still has not delivered a strategy” in Afghanistan. According to the White House, a comprehensive strategy will be in place by mid-July.

Yemen

The first indication that Trump would afford the military greater command in overseas conflicts came in January. U.S. special forces raided a compound in Yemen that belonged to al-Qaeda leaders, a mission that the Obama Administration had not approved. The raid resulted in the death of a Navy SEAL and a number of civilians, including children. Months later, in April, Trump said he was giving the military “total authorization”

“Frankly, that’s why they’ve been so successful lately,” he added. “If you look at what’s happened over the last eight weeks and compare that really to what has happened over the last eight years, you’ll see there is a tremendous difference.”

Syria

In Syria, a number of incidents over the past month has demonstrated the differences in approach between Trump and former President Barack Obama, who many critics say micromanaged the military to its detriment.

On Sunday, a U.S. F-18 Super Hornet downed a Syrian jet after it dropped bombs near the Syrian Democratic Forces, a coalition of U.S.-backed rebel groups. The Pentagon said the action was taken “in collective self-defense of coalition-partnered forces.”

“The coalition’s mission is to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria,” the Pentagon said in a statement. “The coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but will not hesitate to defend coalition or partner forces from any threat. “

The episode marked the first time the U.S. directly took down a Syrian government jet. Earlier this year, after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime unleashed a chemical agent on its own citizens, the Trump Administration responded with an airstrike against a Syrian airstrip. The strike was the first direct U.S. attack against the Syrian government during the six-year-old civil war. 

Four direct engagements w Syria/Iran/Russia in 45 days. Trump is quietly starting a new war that Congress has not declared. Red alert. https://t.co/D4MKPLXFTS

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 19, 2017

During Obama’s tenure, airstrikes and other combat actions in Syria were often meticulously reviewed by the White House. Critics, including people within the Obama Administration, argued that approach was too timid, perhaps contributing to the deteriorating situation in the war-torn country.

But critics of Trump’s approach say the lack of a diplomatic strategy to go along with a weightier military component can be dangerous. It can potentially escalate tensions between the U.S. and other powerful actors in the region, like Iran and Russia, some observers say.

Within the administration, there have been lobbying efforts to broaden the war against Iran and its proxies in Syria, according to Foreign Policy. But Mattis and other generals with decades of battlefield experience have snuffed that idea. The ultimate goal in Syria remains the destruction of Islamic State. The push toward Raqqa, the group’s de facto capital, is well underway.

Regardless of the Trump Administration’s tactics, the outcome in Syria remains the same as it was under Obama. The Pentagon recently wrote in a statement: “The coalition calls on all parties in southern Syria to focus their efforts on the defeat of ISIS, which is our common enemy and the greatest threat to regional and worldwide peace and security.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Doctrine: Let the Pentagon Handle It appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, the Senate overwhelmingly backed a bill that would impose additional sanctions on Iran and Russia. The Senate’s move sent a clear signal to the White House that any conciliatory actions toward the Kremlin would have to go through Congress.

The bill, which passed by a vote of 98-2, would ensure that President Donald Trump could not unilaterally lift sanctions against Russia; any attempt to do so would have to be approved by Congress. The legislation is expected to head to the House in the coming weeks. The two Senators that voted “no” were Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rand Paul (R-KY).

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a statement after the vote. He said:

With passage of this legislation, the Senate reasserts congressional authority–while providing the Trump administration appropriate national security flexibility–and sends a clear signal to both Iran and Russia that our country will stand firm in the face of destabilizing behavior and that Congress will play a leading role in protecting our national interests.

The expanded sanctions on Iran were in response to its ballistic missile development, and its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Tehran also aids Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

An amendment was added to the popular Iran sanctions bill to expand existing sanctions to Russia–citing its election meddling, its seizure of Crimea in 2014, and its support of separatists in eastern Ukraine. Russia is also the primary backer of Assad.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said that the Russian sanctions stand. Yet in a hearing this week, he said the administration would like “flexibility to adjust sanctions to meet the needs of what is always an evolving diplomatic situation.” Tillerson urged Congress to allow him room to maneuver.

Congressional aides told Reuters that the House will likely pass the bill, and support in both chambers will be strong enough to override a veto if the president takes that route.

In a statement following Thursday’s vote, Sanders said he supports additional sanctions against Russia, but believes tightening sanctions against Iran “could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners, and Iran in 2015.” Sanders added that Iran’s “policies and activities” are deeply concerning.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Votes to Make it Harder for Trump to Lift Russia Sanctions appeared first on Law Street.

What started as a baffling and unconventional bromance between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is quickly resembling the U.S.-Russia relationship of the past few administrations. Not so long ago, Trump was praising Putin as a stronger leader than former President Barack Obama. He once expressed hope the two could be best friends. His associates–and Trump himself–are under investigation for possible collusion with the Kremlin’s meddling in the 2016 election.

But all that good will has been unraveling over the past few weeks, accelerated by the chemical weapons attack in Syria on April 4. Russia is a key patron of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said “no doubt” carried out the chemical strike on the town of Khan Shaykhun, killing up to 100 civilians. Since the strike, and the subsequent U.S. military response of striking a Syrian air base with 59 cruise missiles, Moscow and Washington have been engaged in a rhetorical cold war of sorts.

Russia has not only denied prior knowledge of the chemical attack, but has also claimed the strike was carried out by “terrorists”–its blanket classification of all opposition forces–to frame the Syrian regime. In a declassified dossier released on Tuesday, U.S. officials said Syria and Russia “have sought to confuse the world community about who is responsible for using chemical weapons against the Syrian people.” The four-page report, largely dedicated to refuting the Kremlin’s denial, continued:

Russia’s allegations fit with a pattern of deflecting blame from the [Syrian] regime and attempting to undermine the credibility of its opponents. Russia and Syria, in multiple instances since mid-2016, have blamed the opposition for chemical use in attacks. Yet similar to the Russian narrative for the attack on Khan Shaykhun, most Russian allegations have lacked specific or credible information.

Has the chemical attack ended Trump’s stated intentions of building a closer relationship with Russia, in hopes of defeating Islamic State? In spite of the suggestions that Trump is a “Putin puppet” or has unusually kind words for Putin because he knowingly was propped up by Russia’s hacking efforts, the relationship is in danger of deteriorating. On Tuesday, Putin compared the U.S.’s retaliatory strike to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

“To my mind, this strongly resembles what happened in 2003 when representatives of the United States showed in the Security Council what was supposed to be chemical weapons found in Iraq,” Putin said. Using a common acronym for ISIS, he added: “A military campaign in Iraq ensued, and it ended in devastation of the country, growth of the terror threat and emergence of ISIL on the international scene.”

But Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, after being led to believe he would not be granted a private meeting with Putin, will be meeting with the Russian president after all. On Tuesday, at a G-7 meeting in Italy, Tillerson admonished Russia for its failure to fully rid the Syrian government’s chemical weapons stock in 2013, which it pledged to do in a deal with the Obama Administration.

He said Russia was either incompetent in disposing of the chemical weapons, or complicit in allowing the regime to maintain a cache. “But this distinction doesn’t much matter to the dead,” Tillerson said. “We can’t let this happen again.” And in a Wednesday morning interview with Fox, Trump said referring to Russia’s support of Assad: “Putin is backing a person that’s truly an evil person, and I think it’s very bad for Russia, I think it’s very bad for mankind, it’s very bad for this world.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post After Syrian Strike, the U.S.-Russia Relationship Hits a Low Point appeared first on Law Street.

A chemical attack in Syria on Tuesday, thought to be carried out by government forces, killed as many as 100 people and wounded hundreds more, according to some witnesses. Hours after the attack, at a press conference at the White House, Press Secretary Sean Spicer blamed the Obama Administration’s “weakness and irresolution” for the gruesome attack, the deadliest chemical attack in Syria since August 2013.

“Today’s chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world,” Spicer said. “These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration’s weakness and irresolution.” He added: “The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable act.”

According to monitoring groups, medics, and rescue workers, chemical weapons were dropped from jet planes in Idlib, a rebel-held area in the north. Witnesses described victims choking, with some foaming at the mouth, telltale signs of a chemical attack. A government source told Reuters sarin gas was likely used in the attack, which was “almost certainly” carried out by President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

These children can’t breathe. This is the aftermath of a suspectedchemical attack in Syria. pic.twitter.com/6CHTocDaeV

— Alberto Hugo Rojas (@albertohrojas) April 4, 2017

In a statement soon after the attack, the Syrian army denied responsibility: “We deny completely the use of any chemical or toxic material in Khan Sheikhoun town today and the army has not used nor will use in any place or time neither in past or in future,” the statement said, referring to the town in Idlib province where the attack took place. The United Nations Security Council called an emergency meeting for Wednesday to discuss the attack.

The White House response echoed a familiar sentiment that critics often repeat about the Obama Administration’s policy in Syria. President Barack Obama’s inaction, critics say, has allowed the Syrian government, along with its allies Russia and Iran, to continue committing grievous acts against its citizens. Many Republicans, along with some Democrats, thought Obama did not do enough to help the rebel forces, a fractured and largely undefined amalgamation with some extremist elements.

In 2012, in a briefing at the White House, Obama said: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” In August 2013, the Syrian government killed scores of citizens in a sarin gas attack near Damascus. Despite crossing Obama’s stated “red line,” the administration took no military action.

It did, however, reach an agreement with the Syrian government to dispose of its chemical weapons stockpile. Assisted by the Russians, the effort was thought to be successful. But soon after, despite its claims and promises, the Assad regime launched chlorine gas attacks. And although the White House pointed fingers at Obama for Tuesday’s attack, President Donald Trump’s past statements seemed to be against military action as well. In September 2013, he tweeted:

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2013

It is unclear how, if at all, Trump will change the current strategy in Syria as a result of the attack. While he will be sending up to 1,000 more ground troops to bolster the fight against Islamic State, which holds splotches of territory in the north of Syria, Trump’s strategy has not strayed much from the Obama Administration’s. And while Obama’s strategy in Syria focused on defeating ISIS, rather than unseating Assad, he still hoped Assad would be toppled. That is something that the new administration has signaled is not a top priority.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently said the “longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people.” And Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, suggested ousting Assad is not a primary focus of the Syrian strategy. “Do we think he’s a hindrance? Yes,” she said. “Are we going to sit there and focus on getting him out? No.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post White House: Chemical Attack in Syria is Obama’s Fault appeared first on Law Street.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) ruffled some feathers in Washington on Wednesday when she announced that during a recent “fact-finding mission” to Syria, she met with President Bashar al-Assad. In an appearance on CNN’s “The Lead” and in an essay on Medium, Gabbard defended her trip against criticism for engaging with Assad, a tyrannical leader whose six-year civil war has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions.

“In order for any peace agreement, in order for any possible viable peace agreement to occur, there has to be a conversation with him,” Gabbard, 35, told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Wednesday. “The Syrian people will determine his outcome and what happens with their government and their future.”

The House Ethics Committee approved Gabbard’s trip, she said, which included stops in Aleppo and Damascus in Syria, as well as Beirut, Lebanon. She also said her trip was not funded by taxpayer money, but by the Arab American Community Center for Economic and Social Services, or AACCESS. During the weeklong trip, Gabbard met with many of the actors involved in the conflict: refugees, opposition leaders, business owners, students and, of course, Assad.

“I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there’s a chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering,” Gabbard wrote in her account of her trip. She added that her visit showed her that U.S. policy in Syria “does not serve America’s interest, and it certainly isn’t in the interest of the Syrian people.”

In her first-person account, Gabbard concluded that there is no difference between the brutal jihadist groups like Islamic State or al-Qaeda and “moderate” rebel groups that the U.S. has helped in the fight. “This is a war between terrorists under the command of groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Syrian government,” Gabbard said, adding that the people she met with wish the U.S. and other countries would “stop supporting those who are destroying Syria and her people.”

Gabbard’s meeting with Assad was condemned by a number of people, including former independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin:

Part of Moscow’s effort to undermine democracy in Europe and the US is to support the extreme left and right. @tulsigabbard @realDonaldTrump

— Evan McMullin (@Evan_McMullin) January 26, 2017

Josh Rogin, a political analyst with The Washington Post, saw Gabbard’s trip as a propaganda effort by the Assad regime:

.@TulsiGabbard says the Syrians she spoke to all support Assad. Maybe because her trip was arranged by the regime? #facepalm

— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) January 25, 2017

Whatever the response to her trip, Gabbard said she comes back to D.C. “with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government.” Calling on Congress and the Trump Administration to end U.S. support for some Syrian rebel groups, Gabbard added: “We must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention on defeating al-Qaeda and ISIS.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Did Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad? appeared first on Law Street.

Aleppo, the once-vibrant World Heritage city in northwest Syria is in ruins, its residents trapped, its buildings folded over, its streets smoldering, littered with decaying bodies. A ceasefire was brokered by Russia and Turkey on Tuesday, aimed at allowing civilians and rebel fighters to be evacuated to the rebel-held city of Idlib, or to government-held territory in Aleppo. But by Wednesday afternoon, that small glimmer of hope was snuffed out as Turkish officials and activists on the ground reported more airstrikes and shelling.

Civilians who had gathered their belongings on Tuesday, hoping to pack into buses and flee the crumbling city, were stuck, with as many as 50,000 trapped in a small eastern pocket of Aleppo still held by rebel forces. It is unclear who exactly initiated or participated in Wednesday’s attacks. Turkey’s Foreign Minister said the Syrian regime and “some forces” were responsible, possibly alluding to Russia and Iran, two of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s closest allies.

It is unclear how many residents were able to flee Aleppo before it was razed and absorbed by the government. Russia says at least 100,000 people left; the UN put the figure at 37,000. Bana, the seven-year-old girl who began tweeting from Aleppo in September, appears to be still trapped in the city with her mother. On Tuesday, Bana tweeted: “This is my last moment to either live or die.” On Wednesday, Fatemah, Bana’s mother, pleaded with the international community to intervene:

Dear world, there’s intense bombing right now. Why are you silent? Why? Why? Why? Fear is killing me & my kids. – Fatemah #Aleppo

— Bana Alabed (@AlabedBana) December 14, 2016

Syrian forces entered the eastern, rebel-held flank of Aleppo on November 27, and quickly began gobbling up neighborhoods, and indiscriminately bombing apartments, buildings, and markets. The United Nations reports that hundreds of civilians have been killed since the government launched its offensive. When government forces announced their uncontested control of the entire city on Tuesday, a ceasefire was reached, and an evacuation plan, for rebels and civilians alike, was laid out.

Rebel fighters were to be bussed to rebel-held areas, either in Idlib to the west, or in rural, isolated areas throughout the country. Civilians had an option: to join the rebels or to be ushered into government hands. The evacuation process was set to begin before dawn on Wednesday morning, but buses were stalled and airstrikes and shelling eventually continued. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring group with activists on the ground, said 6,000 civilians had been conscripted by the Syrian government, forced to join the army.

“I hope you can remember us.”

This teacher in Aleppo shares a harrowing “last call” video as government forces take control of the city. pic.twitter.com/2CMzZplvav

— AJ+ (@ajplus) December 13, 2016

Others were simply executed. The UN reported that on Tuesday, Syrian troops and Iraqi militant groups killed 82 civilians, including at least 11 women and 13 children. Speaking to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the international body’s “immediate task is to do all we can to stop the carnage.” He added: “Aleppo should represent the end of the quest for military victory, not the start of a broader military campaign in a country already ravaged beyond all recognition by five years of war.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ceasefire in Aleppo Breaks Down: What’s Happening on the Ground? appeared first on Law Street.

There may be fewer casualties as a result of the pause in fighting in Syria this week, but there are also starving men, women, and children who continue to suffer because of Bashar al-Assad, the president of the combusting nation. In a briefing with reporters in Geneva on Thursday, the U.N. mediator for Syria said the Assad government has failed to authorize letters that aid convoys need to pass through checkpoints. As a result, the vital aid millions of Syrians hoped to receive during the week-long ceasefire has yet to arrive.

“It’s particularly regrettable because we are losing time,” Staffan de Mistura, the mediator, said. Beginning Monday, the ceasefire has largely held. Jointly implemented by the United States and Russia, the intention is to test whether fighting can remain paused for a week.

If it can, the United States, which opposes Assad’s government, and Russia, Assad’s ally, will begin cooperating in the fight against an enemy shared by all sides, including the rebel groups fighting Assad’s regime: the Islamic State. The ceasefire agreement does not include ISIS or other terrorist groups, such as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, formerly known as the Nusra Front.

But the cessation of hostilities agreement was also intended to crack open a window through which U.N. trucks could pass through, bringing aid to the most devastated pockets in Syria–including areas near Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. That part of the ceasefire has been a failure, and it’s unclear if a joint U.S.-Russia campaign hinges on the humanitarian relief portion of the deal. Assad is in charge of authorizing the letters that aid groups need to proceed.

“Can well-fed, grown men please stop putting political, bureaucratic, and procedural roadblocks for brave humanitarian workers that are willing and able to go to serve women, children, wounded civilians in besieged areas?” said Jan Egeland, the U.N. special adviser on humanitarian affairs.

And while combat has halted in much of the country, casualties were still recorded since the arrangement went into effect. On Thursday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported airstrikes in ISIS-held territory in an eastern province. At least seven civilians were killed, and 30 more were injured. Of the four buildings that were hit with the strikes, one was a school, the group said.

A day earlier, Russia said it killed 250 ISIS fighters near the desert city of Palmyra.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In Breach of Ceasefire, Syrian Government Has Yet to Authorize Aid Convoys appeared first on Law Street.