America's Credibility Is at Stake

Obama’s red line: After Assad’s use of chemical weapons, the West must gradually intervene in Syria. Iran will be monitoring very carefully whether the U.S. now remains passive.

The world can no longer ignore the knowledge that Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against his people. Initially Britain and France reported that they had proof of the use of the terrible weapons; then Israeli military intelligence did as well.

The Americans were slightly surprised until Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel had to admit on Thursday that the latest findings from U.S. agencies suggested that Assad had used chemical weapons. Washington hastened to emphasize that there was not yet enough proof to be sure that Barack Obama’s “red line” had been crossed.

Statements such as these scarcely conceal the unpleasant situation in which the U.S. government finds itself. Up until now Obama has tried to keep his country out of the conflict in Syria with the motto “no new adventures.” That is now hard to keep to.

From Hezbollah to Iran and al-Qaida, the most unpleasant characters in the Middle East are active in Syria. None of the main Western powers attaches any great importance to sending soldiers into this wasps’ nest.

The U.S.’ Credibility Is at Stake

The Americans have already made the acquaintance of some of these forces in their intervention in the Lebanese Civil War during the 1980s. In a 1983 suicide attack by Hezbollah on the American and French military headquarters, 241 U.S. and 58 French soldiers died.

Hezbollah, equipped and trained by the Iranians, has since grown into a far more dangerous force. Although Iran and Hezbollah are fighting on the other side of the Syrian barricade from al-Qaida, the three would not neglect the opportunity to take action against Western soldiers if they intervened in the Syrian civil war with ground troops. This explains the American reluctance to put an end to the slaughter in Syria.

Nevertheless, America is bound to react to Assad’s use of the nerve gas sarin. American President Barack Obama drew a very clear red line months ago for the use or even the movement of chemical weapons.

America’s credibility is thus at stake, especially since the president has drawn another, far more important red line: that Iran cannot under any circumstances become a nuclear power. The Iranians will know how seriously they should take this threat if America now remains passive.

That does mean that America should react with ground troops or a full-scale war. The West could follow the example of Assad, who has escalated his war against the rebels and his own people step by step in the past months. The West could do exactly the same.

Encouragement for More Weapons of Mass Destruction

In the fight against the rebels, Assad has gradually used weapons of larger and larger caliber in residential areas as well. He has also increasingly made use of the air force, whose imprecise bombs claim many victims. The next step was the launching of scud rockets on residential areas.

Assad has systematically tested how far he can go. And since he got away with each further escalation, he has now tried using an apparently limited amount of sarin to see if he can get away with that as well. One thing should be clear: If that does not have any consequences, Assad will be emboldened to deploy his weapons of mass destruction on a larger scale and carry out even greater massacres of the civilian population.

Therefore the West should decide on a strategy that allows them to likewise escalate the situation step by step. That means starting small with, for example, a no-fly zone over part of the Syrian territory near the Turkish border.

Escalation Strategy in the Syrian Conflict

A secure humanitarian corridor would also be sorely needed for Syrian refugees to flee along on the one hand and from which the suffering population in “liberated” areas can be directly supplied with humanitarian aid on the other. This is what Human Rights Watch and other aid agencies and human rights organizations have long been calling for.

Everything else would then depend on Assad. If he further escalates the war against his people, the no-fly zone would have to be extended to other areas of the country. It would also be conceivable to secure Assad’s weapons of mass destruction with special forces. There are therefore many options to pursue before a full-scale war.

One thing, however, is neither morally nor strategically justifiable after Assad’s use of chemical weapons: that we stand idly by and watch Assad’s mass murder of his people.