Edited by Kyrstie Lane
Syria: Has Obama Fallen into His Own Trap?
In not getting involved militarily in the case of Damascus using chemical weapons, the United States currently faces “the red line” that they have drawn. How much room does Barack Obama have to maneuver? Several specialists offer a response.
Has Damascus Crossed the Red Line?
Lacking sufficient evidence, Washington still does not know if Bashar al-Assad’s regime resorted to using chemical weapons in the conflict that has engulfed Syria for more than two years. For the White House, their utilization has certainly taken place. But “we don’t know how they were used, when they were used, who used them,” Barack Obama recently stated. “We find it highly likely that any chemical weapon use that has taken place in Syria was done by the Assad regime,” his press secretary Jay Carney said on Monday.
Back in August 2012, the American president brought up a “red line” on the question of the use or movement of chemical weapons that was not to be crossed. The warning from Barack Obama was clear: if “the equation” changed, the decision not to get involved militarily would be reconsidered. “The United States has laid down this fairly high red line thinking that it would never be crossed, and they now find themselves caught in their own trap,” explains Vincent Desportes, former French army general and professor at Sciences Po Paris to JDD.fr. “Barack Obama has never wanted to intervene in Syria,” added the military strategy specialist. For Fabrice Balanche, an expert on Syria at Université Lyon 2, the red line was “a threat against the Syrian regime, but they didn’t know the country well at all.”
What Options Does Washington Have?
Between threats and prudence, American diplomacy nevertheless finds itself in a complex position. What will the White House do if Damascus really has resorted to using these weapons? Barack Obama confirmed that several options were being studied last week. “If this usage is proven, it will be impossible for the Americans to do nothing since their credibility is at stake,” General Desportes reports. “But there is neither interest nor ways to intervene that would be favorable to the United States,” he said.
The military option appears to be impossible, exacerbated by the fact that Washington would not want to act alone. “This may involve greater support for the Syrian rebels by giving them more money to train or providing them with arms,” Fabrice Balanche reasons. This final point has already been debated elsewhere, notably in Europe, and is not strictly conditional on the chemical weapons. According to several sources, insurgents have already received some weapons. Interviewed by JDD.fr, Francois Heisbourg, special adviser to the Foundation for Research Strategies, thinks that Barack Obama still has “a rather large margin to maneuver.” “In cementing this red line, the leader spoke of ‘some quantities of chemical weapons.’” In order to give himself some time, “he can play with the definition of that line.”
Do the Rebels Also Have Chemical Weapons?
Known for her bold convictions, Carla del Ponte, a member of the investigatory U.N. commission on human rights violations in Syria, said Sunday on Swiss television that she had seen a report on “evidence gathered concerning the utilization of chemical weapons … by the opposition,” specifically sarin gas. The U.N.’s investigatory commission said that it had come to no conclusion on these “allegations.” The American administration, for its part, said it was “highly skeptical” about this information.
“If proof has really come out about this, that would put an end to any possibility of arming the rebels,” Francois Heisbourg states. Yet, from a diplomatic point of view, this scenario would not present any disadvantages to the United States. “This would most likely allow the negotiations to be drawn out without having to intervene,” explains Vincent Desportes, so that “the direct implication for the Americans in the Syrian conflict will be scaled back.” For Fabrice Balanche, on the other hand, this could potentially limit aid but not stop it completely.
The Israeli Case
The issue of chemical weapons is compounded by the rising tensions on the ground after Israeli raids on Friday and Sunday against military positions near Damascus. Several shots from Syrian territory have since targeted the Golan Heights in the area occupied by Israel since 1967. On Saturday, its American ally deemed it “justifiable” that Israel looks to “guard against the transfer of advanced weaponry to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah" in Lebanon.
“Israel doesn’t involve the Americans too much, since the survival of the Jewish state is not in question. On the contrary, the United States can leave it to act on its own,” Vincent Desportes explains. Stating that it was not aware of the Israeli attacks, Washington still sought to “distance itself from these actions,” Francois Heisbourg reports. For the specialist, “there seems to be a kind of embarrassment that I do not believe to be real. In the end, the Americans must be pleased that Israel got rid of the missiles on an industrial scale.” As for the risk of prolonging the conflict throughout the region, he sees it as “possible,” but not imminent. Since the Syrian regime is already cornered, it cannot afford an escalation.
Has Damascus Crossed the Red Line?
Lacking sufficient evidence, Washington still does not know if Bashar al-Assad’s regime resorted to using chemical weapons in the conflict that has engulfed Syria for more than two years. For the White House, their utilization has certainly taken place. But “we don’t know how they were used, when they were used, who used them,” Barack Obama recently stated. “We find it highly likely that any chemical weapon use that has taken place in Syria was done by the Assad regime,” his press secretary Jay Carney said on Monday.
Back in August 2012, the American president brought up a “red line” on the question of the use or movement of chemical weapons that was not to be crossed. The warning from Barack Obama was clear: if “the equation” changed, the decision not to get involved militarily would be reconsidered. “The United States has laid down this fairly high red line thinking that it would never be crossed, and they now find themselves caught in their own trap,” explains Vincent Desportes, former French army general and professor at Sciences Po Paris to JDD.fr. “Barack Obama has never wanted to intervene in Syria,” added the military strategy specialist. For Fabrice Balanche, an expert on Syria at Université Lyon 2, the red line was “a threat against the Syrian regime, but they didn’t know the country well at all.”
What Options Does Washington Have?
Between threats and prudence, American diplomacy nevertheless finds itself in a complex position. What will the White House do if Damascus really has resorted to using these weapons? Barack Obama confirmed that several options were being studied last week. “If this usage is proven, it will be impossible for the Americans to do nothing since their credibility is at stake,” General Desportes reports. “But there is neither interest nor ways to intervene that would be favorable to the United States,” he said.
The military option appears to be impossible, exacerbated by the fact that Washington would not want to act alone. “This may involve greater support for the Syrian rebels by giving them more money to train or providing them with arms,” Fabrice Balanche reasons. This final point has already been debated elsewhere, notably in Europe, and is not strictly conditional on the chemical weapons. According to several sources, insurgents have already received some weapons. Interviewed by JDD.fr, Francois Heisbourg, special adviser to the Foundation for Research Strategies, thinks that Barack Obama still has “a rather large margin to maneuver.” “In cementing this red line, the leader spoke of ‘some quantities of chemical weapons.’” In order to give himself some time, “he can play with the definition of that line.”
Do the Rebels Also Have Chemical Weapons?
Known for her bold convictions, Carla del Ponte, a member of the investigatory U.N. commission on human rights violations in Syria, said Sunday on Swiss television that she had seen a report on “evidence gathered concerning the utilization of chemical weapons … by the opposition,” specifically sarin gas. The U.N.’s investigatory commission said that it had come to no conclusion on these “allegations.” The American administration, for its part, said it was “highly skeptical” about this information.
“If proof has really come out about this, that would put an end to any possibility of arming the rebels,” Francois Heisbourg states. Yet, from a diplomatic point of view, this scenario would not present any disadvantages to the United States. “This would most likely allow the negotiations to be drawn out without having to intervene,” explains Vincent Desportes, so that “the direct implication for the Americans in the Syrian conflict will be scaled back.” For Fabrice Balanche, on the other hand, this could potentially limit aid but not stop it completely.
The Israeli Case
The issue of chemical weapons is compounded by the rising tensions on the ground after Israeli raids on Friday and Sunday against military positions near Damascus. Several shots from Syrian territory have since targeted the Golan Heights in the area occupied by Israel since 1967. On Saturday, its American ally deemed it “justifiable” that Israel looks to “guard against the transfer of advanced weaponry to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah" in Lebanon.
“Israel doesn’t involve the Americans too much, since the survival of the Jewish state is not in question. On the contrary, the United States can leave it to act on its own,” Vincent Desportes explains. Stating that it was not aware of the Israeli attacks, Washington still sought to “distance itself from these actions,” Francois Heisbourg reports. For the specialist, “there seems to be a kind of embarrassment that I do not believe to be real. In the end, the Americans must be pleased that Israel got rid of the missiles on an industrial scale.” As for the risk of prolonging the conflict throughout the region, he sees it as “possible,” but not imminent. Since the Syrian regime is already cornered, it cannot afford an escalation.