US Intervention in Syria: Message to Iran?

With the intensification of discussion about the possibility that chemical weapons have been used in Syria in recent days, several U.S. officials have put forth arguments about the necessity of intervening in Syria. In this context, one perspective is that increasing the necessity of this intervention could send a message to Iran. Some analysts have challenged this perspective.

According to a report published today by Tabnak and the Emirati newspaper Gulf News, content about the Syria crisis indicates that many arguments for and against U.S. intervention in Syria have been put forth recently. Backers of the intervention claim that Bashar al-Assad’s days are numbered and that, in the event that U.S. wants to benefit from the outcome of the crisis in this country, it should put direct intervention on its agenda.

On the other hand, opponents of such an intervention point to the fact that the American people are not favorably disposed to entering into a new war in the Middle East and, more importantly, not inclined to see every crisis in the Middle East as a U.S. problem. Addressing the public diplomatic arena, this group also believes that the risks of a U.S. intervention in the region are greater than the benefits. Continuing on this topic, which U.S. analyst and University of Vermont Professor Gordon Robison has also reported on, Gulf News indicates that other arguments for U.S. intervention in Syria are being put forth that seem “foolish” besides these examples.

One of the most important of these foolish arguments is a scenario brought up last week: The U.S. should take serious action against the Assad government and punish him for using chemical weapons so as to prevent Iran’s nuclear program from progressing, while also sending a message to Iran.

This is an argument that U.S. analysts and politicians are proposing in various ways, including Steven Heydemann, senior adviser for Middle East Initiatives at the U.S. Institute of Peace, who presented this view in an interview with Foreign Policy.

It is possible to claim that this is just one analyst in one think tank who holds this view, but private think tanks have an important role in shaping policy in the U.S. system. Therefore, it is no surprise that Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., an extremist U.S. senator, puts forth similar viewpoints.

In an interview with the television network CBS last week, according to this report, Graham said: “If we keep this hands-off approach to Syria, this indecisive action toward Syria, kind of not knowing what we're going to do next, we're going to have war with Iran because Iran's going to take our inaction in Syria as meaning we're not serious about their nuclear weapons program.

"We need to get involved ... There's a growing consensus in the U.S. Senate that the United States should get involved.”

Graham likewise called for the establishment of a no-fly zone over Syria, the destruction of this country’s air defenses and a program to send the right weapons to the right individuals.

However, it was last week’s report by the U.S. intelligence community that the nerve gas sarin has been used in Syria that became the cause of all these declarations of opinion and stance-takings. Based on this report and considering Obama’s announcement a few months ago that the use of chemical weapons in Syria presents the "red line" for U.S. involvement in Syria, his critics are demanding action on the matter.

Obama’s immediate response to the issue gave the appearance of an effort to buy time. In the course of a meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan, he said, “Knowing that potentially chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria doesn’t tell us when they were used, how they were used.”

Now, do not lose sight for a moment of the fact that — despite Graham’s pronouncements — it still has in no way been determined that Iran actually has a program for building nuclear weapons! Keeping this in mind is especially necessary in order for us to pay attention to how matters concerning Iran are boiled down for some people in Washington.

Iran and Syria are both fundamental issues for the U.S., for which no simple or at least clear strategy exists. It is also true that Iran is one of Assad’s few remaining allies and is also providing this country with aid.

For better or worse, this is the reason Iran will have a part in any outcome that results in Syria. This also means that if the international community decides to take action to put an end to the Syrian crisis, Iran’s interests will have to be taken into account.

On the other hand, regarding this theory, one can speculate about the possibility that, in lieu of reduced international sanctions against Iran, such action could solicit cooperation or at least prevent objections from Iran on the Syria matter. The West has severely neglected this kind of possible agreement.