Why the US Could Launch Military Strike without UK’s Support

Following an imminent withdrawal of British support, it is now emerging that the US is on the verge of taking a unilateral military action against Syria. According to Western Diplomatic sources at UN, defeat of David Cameron’s motion in the house of commons to use military force against Syria is the main cause of this looming drastic action by Obama’s administration. It is said that the defeat caused yet another embarrassment to US-UK relations. The White House has however categorically stated that they would not under any circumstance or condition change course in respect of the Commons Vote.

Caitlin Hayden, who is the current spokesman for the National Security Council reiterated White House’s position. He was quick to note that President Obama firmly believes that there are crucial interests at stake for the US, and that countries that violate international laws regarding chemical weapons have to be held accountable. White House officials had earlier been quoted saying that unilateral action may be necessary in Syria and that there are high chances that the US would take a unilateral military action.

William Hague, the White House spokesperson went on to highlight Caitlyn Hayden’s remarks, saying that the US was capable of making its own decisions. All these claims come in the wake of trending news that Russia will veto any resolution by the UN to use force in Syria.

The world is now left to watch what will happen should Britain Withdraw its army. Things might change for the worse should the US do the unthinkable and withdraw its army. Experts warn that there are 5 grave repercussions of a US military strike Syria. They warn that Syria could reiterate, Iran would take aim at Israel, radical groups would reiterate or that the US could be accused of war crimes. The fifth possible repercussion which is somehow drenched in ambiguity is the fact that the US could succeed in her plea to deter use of chemical weapons.