Obama in a Tight Spot: US Intervention Because of Chemical Weapons Would Be Risky
Published in Hamburger Abendblatt
(Germany) on 27 April 2013
by Thomas Frankenfeld (link to
original)
One milligram of VX nerve gas, when inhaled, leads to agonizing death within minutes. Other chemical weapons like tabun and sarin, developed by German chemists during the Nazi era, are no less deadly. Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad is suspected to have up to 1,000 tons of these apocalyptic weapons in his arsenal.
In August 2012, U.S. President Barack Obama said the use of “a whole bunch” of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime would cross a red line and change the U.S. government’s calculations regarding Syria. When Washington debates whether the amount of poison gas Syria may have used already has crossed this red line, it sounds a bit like splitting hairs. The use of poison gas has not yet been conclusively proven. Also, in the case of a U.S. intervention, Obama would be faced with a number of large risks. First of all, Americans are tired of war — nobody wants to risk another bloodbath like Iraq. Second, the Syrian regime has close ties with Iran. The mullahs have already supplied troops for the Syrian civil war. A U.S. intervention could trigger Iran to unleash Hamas and Hezbollah militias against Israel in an effort to build a second front. Such a conflict would have unforeseeable consequences for the entire region. Furthermore, Russia’s only Mediterranean port is in Syria; Moscow could take a serious position against the West.
Obama has maneuvered himself into a tight spot regarding Syria’s use of chemical weapons. If Assad actually deploys them, Obama must act. This is not only to ensure the credibility of the U.S.; the entire global community should draw a red line for the use of weapons of mass destruction. Otherwise, we do not need organizations like the U.N. In addition, in the case of a further disintegration of the Syrian state, the arsenal could fall into the hands of al-Qaida and could eventually be used as a weapon of terror in Europe or the U.S.
In August 2012, U.S. President Barack Obama said the use of “a whole bunch” of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime would cross a red line and change the U.S. government’s calculations regarding Syria. When Washington debates whether the amount of poison gas Syria may have used already has crossed this red line, it sounds a bit like splitting hairs. The use of poison gas has not yet been conclusively proven. Also, in the case of a U.S. intervention, Obama would be faced with a number of large risks. First of all, Americans are tired of war — nobody wants to risk another bloodbath like Iraq. Second, the Syrian regime has close ties with Iran. The mullahs have already supplied troops for the Syrian civil war. A U.S. intervention could trigger Iran to unleash Hamas and Hezbollah militias against Israel in an effort to build a second front. Such a conflict would have unforeseeable consequences for the entire region. Furthermore, Russia’s only Mediterranean port is in Syria; Moscow could take a serious position against the West.
Obama has maneuvered himself into a tight spot regarding Syria’s use of chemical weapons. If Assad actually deploys them, Obama must act. This is not only to ensure the credibility of the U.S.; the entire global community should draw a red line for the use of weapons of mass destruction. Otherwise, we do not need organizations like the U.N. In addition, in the case of a further disintegration of the Syrian state, the arsenal could fall into the hands of al-Qaida and could eventually be used as a weapon of terror in Europe or the U.S.