Obama Draws Assad a "Red Line"

The President of the United States has said that use or transport of chemical weapons by Damascus will be grounds for military intervention in the crisis in Syria. By touching upon America’s favorite theme, weapons of mass destruction, Barack Obama is striving to gain points in the presidential polls. Still, it’s unlikely that America actually wants to go to war in Syria; instead, if military intervention is called for, it would be America’s regional allies who carry it out.

“We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region, that that’s a red line for us, and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front, or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly,” Obama said on Aug. 20. He explained that the situation “doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel.” He also added, “We cannot have a situation where chemical, biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.”

It’s worth noting that Obama’s fear of “weapons falling into the hands of the wrong people” is rather odd. In this case, “the wrong people” refers to radicals and terrorists, but America actively supports radicals as well as political, financial and technological terrorists. Washington has simply found a reason for military intervention.

Though the presence of chemical weapons in Syria has been common knowledge among special force operatives and intelligence experts worldwide for some time, official evidence only surfaced in mid-July. On July 23, Syrian foreign ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, announced that his country could use chemical weapons in the event of an outside military intervention, but insisted that nothing would be used against the country’s civilians.

Syrian officials were probably trying to bolster their position in the face of daily talks about the possibility of external military intervention, but the move only backfired: Damascus struck a blow to its own image. Even Moscow and Beijing jumped to persuade the country not to use WMDs under any circumstance, but the damage was done. The situation has become a hot-button issue, and Israelis have begun to purchase personal defense systems.

Controversial reports from the Syrian opposition revealed that Assad’s regime was pushing toward the border and into the region where the country’s WMDs are stored. Though these claims were disproved, tensions have only increased. In Syria’s civil war, authorities must scramble every day to ensure that the weapons are secure, and guarantee that they will not fall into the hands of radicals. Another troubling aspect of Makdissi’s announcement was his promise not to use chemical weapons against peaceful civilians: One man’s peaceful civilian is another man’s terrorist, and it remains unclear who is who in the eyes of Makdissi and the rest of the Syrian government. With the threat of chemical warfare on the table, it may be necessary to force Syria to comply with the relevant international conventions, and Assad’s regime would be less than thrilled.

Though Syria did not sign the international convention banning chemical weapons outright, it is part of the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which bans the use of chemical and biological weapons. Damascus ratified the document in 1968 with the proviso that the protocol did not constitute Syria’s recognition of the state of Israel. In agreeing to the protocol, Syria promised not to use offensive or retaliatory chemical and biological weapons against other countries.

According to United States’ State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, America would act at its own discretion in Syria and not in accordance with rules established by the international community. “That said, you know that we are relatively skeptical at the moment that we’re going to have more success in the [U.N.] Security Council, given the blockages of some of the permanent members,” Nuland said in a State Department press briefing in Washington on Aug. 20. “So, in the context of that, we will continue to try to pursue the same agenda, that is to get to a political transition strategy, to get to an end to the bloodshed, and to get to a real transition with those countries that are willing to participate, outside the U.N. if necessary.”

Though Washington’s position is crystal clear, it is unlikely that it will want to enter into an armed conflict. The presidential election is coming up on Nov. 6, and politics are in full pre-election swing. Republicans have criticized Obama’s administration for indecision and have called on Congress to arm Syrian rebels. Meanwhile, Democrats have focused on keeping the situation under control and closely observing the dynamics of the opposition. At this time there is no information regarding Damascus’ readiness to use chemical weapons, but as the election approaches, the hot topic of WMDs has once again entered the American consciousness. In the current situation, Obama has few courses of action. Laying out a potential military intervention is one of them; however, it is highly doubtful that Washington would begin a war on the eve of an election. Moreover, it’s unlikely that the United States would want to engage Syria militarily at any time, especially when the United States can count on the “Friends of Syria” group to support the opposition in its stead.

Moscow is currently working to prevent a military conflict by persuading opposing sides to engage each other diplomatically, along the lines of the Geneva Accords. Russia proposed an immediate ceasefire and the formation of a transitional government on Aug. 21 in Moscow when Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov hosted a delegation from Damascus. “We are committed to the Geneva Accords planned by Kofi Annan. We are convinced that this is the only way we can quickly end the bloodshed and save as many lives as possible,” Lavrov said.

Russia will pressure Damascus by highlighting the inadequacy of measures taken to resolve the crisis. “Judging by what we’ve seen in Syria, the steps taken haven’t been enough, but we are positive that there is no other solution besides continuing this line. A considerable portion of Syria’s people are dissatisfied with this position, but it is exactly for this reason that national reconciliation is a number one priority.” According to Lavrov, such a reconciliation will require cooperation from both sides of the conflict.

Syrian Deputy Prime Minister Qadri Jamil, who headed the delegation in Moscow, expressed his concern about outside interference to Lavrov. “It’s difficult for us. First, the external intervention in our country’s affairs prevents Syria from solving its own problems. The government is working toward the aim of national reconciliation. All sides have to compromise.” How convincing Lavrov found Jamil remains to be seen. At the moment, Russia appears entirely impartial.

Moscow has been promoting this approach among the entire international community. According to Lavrov, the West’s inability to reach a consensus about Syria is troubling. “We seek reconciliation between the Geneva Accords and the Syrian government. Our partners have not tried to do anything of the sort. More importantly, the main opposition groups in Syria have rejected this document. No one is even trying to cooperate,” he said to the press.

U.N. Security Council members refused to accept the Geneva Accords as a basis for establishing a dialogue in Syria, despite the fact that the constituent countries are all party to the agreement. “Their inability to negotiate is alarming,” Lavrov noted. The West has enormous leverage over the opposition. From Paris to Istanbul to the Gulf monarchies, the rebels are supplied with everything that they need.