OPD 8/22 Edited by Jonathan Douglas
Obama Draws a Red Line in Syria
Barack Obama, president of the United States, has drawn a red line in the arms conflict that is bleeding Syria dry: if the Bashar al-Assad regime “moves or uses” its chemical arsenal, one of the largest stockpiles of mustard gas, sarin, and cyanide in the Middle East, the United States will intervene in the war.
Obama’s reasons for making this decision weeks ago and confirming it categorically on Monday, are numerous. On the one hand, there are humanitarian reasons: Bashar al-Assad’s repression of Syrian citizens has caused more than 23,000 deaths (half of whom were civilians) and a million and a half have been displaced to neighboring countries, according to the United Nations. On the other hand, there are strategic reasons: the U.S. and Israel fear that these lethal gases will fall into the hands of the Shiite Hezbollah militia or jihadist groups operating in the Syrian War amongst the rebels. Jewish diplomacy sources have warned that, if cornered, al-Assad could give Hezbollah access to chemical weapons, and this group could launch them over Israel via missiles. The expansion of the conflict beyond the Syrian border would be inevitable in this case
Obama’s announcement marks a before-and-after in the U.S. position on the Syrian conflict. Until now, Washington has maintained a relatively discreet profile. The memory of Iraq and Afghanistan, the proximity of the November presidential elections and a more respectful political doctrine toward the Islamic world were motives that advised as much, although there is no shortage of intervention supporters, especially among Obama’s opponents.
Therefore, until now, the U.S. has been limited to working quietly in favor of the rebels, developing transition plans and uniting the factions by providing medical supplies, information, and even weapons. But the conflict becomes more complicated each day. What began as a revolt in line with other Arab Spring movements has become a war plagued by radical elements, in which a limited intervention could have the worst consequences of any intervention.
It now remains to be seen how the United States intervention will materialize. Qualified voices of the State Department are determining the collaboration of countries like Turkey and Israel, and they recommend focusing on naval and aerial support for the rebels, ideally avoiding the deployment of their own troops on the ground. And, of course, it remains to be seen what effects this would have. Because these type of operations can have, no matter how much assurance is given to the opposite effect, uncontrollable consequences.
Obama’s reasons for making this decision weeks ago and confirming it categorically on Monday, are numerous. On the one hand, there are humanitarian reasons: Bashar al-Assad’s repression of Syrian citizens has caused more than 23,000 deaths (half of whom were civilians) and a million and a half have been displaced to neighboring countries, according to the United Nations. On the other hand, there are strategic reasons: the U.S. and Israel fear that these lethal gases will fall into the hands of the Shiite Hezbollah militia or jihadist groups operating in the Syrian War amongst the rebels. Jewish diplomacy sources have warned that, if cornered, al-Assad could give Hezbollah access to chemical weapons, and this group could launch them over Israel via missiles. The expansion of the conflict beyond the Syrian border would be inevitable in this case
Obama’s announcement marks a before-and-after in the U.S. position on the Syrian conflict. Until now, Washington has maintained a relatively discreet profile. The memory of Iraq and Afghanistan, the proximity of the November presidential elections and a more respectful political doctrine toward the Islamic world were motives that advised as much, although there is no shortage of intervention supporters, especially among Obama’s opponents.
Therefore, until now, the U.S. has been limited to working quietly in favor of the rebels, developing transition plans and uniting the factions by providing medical supplies, information, and even weapons. But the conflict becomes more complicated each day. What began as a revolt in line with other Arab Spring movements has become a war plagued by radical elements, in which a limited intervention could have the worst consequences of any intervention.
It now remains to be seen how the United States intervention will materialize. Qualified voices of the State Department are determining the collaboration of countries like Turkey and Israel, and they recommend focusing on naval and aerial support for the rebels, ideally avoiding the deployment of their own troops on the ground. And, of course, it remains to be seen what effects this would have. Because these type of operations can have, no matter how much assurance is given to the opposite effect, uncontrollable consequences.