With Syria, the US Has Grabbed the Tiger by the Tail

Recently, the United States and other Western nations have been sounding the drums of war for military strikes against Syria. Although the U.K. parliament rejected Prime Minister David Cameron’s motion for war, the Obama administration seemingly remains stubbornly committed to its course, confirming that it will initiate strikes of limited scope against the Middle Eastern nation.

However, the administration has been forced to extend the window for attacks after coming under both domestic and foreign pressure in recent weeks. Internationally, its close ally, the U.K., has shrunk from action, and NATO, as well as Germany, Belgium, Poland and other countries have all conveyed their explicit refusal to participate. Furthermore, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Lakhdar Brahimi, special envoy to Syria, both oppose any military strikes not authorized by the United Nations. Russia and China also oppose any military action prior to obtaining the results of U.N. chemical weapons inspections. Public opinion polls reveal that more than 60 percent of Americans do not favor a military solution.

The United States claims that it holds evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in recent attacks, but this “evidence” has not yet been presented to U.N. inspectors and the Security Council. Common sense suggests that the Syrian regime has absolutely no need of utilizing chemical weapons that would provoke foreign intervention, as its military currently holds the advantage.

The overthrow of the Assad regime is a strategic objective set long ago by the United States and other Western nations. In the past two and a half years, the realization of this goal has been slow in coming, due to the tenacity of the Syrian regime and ineptitude of opposition forces. With the approach of general elections in Syria in 2014 (Assad will likely consolidate his legal base through another round of elections), the tide of battle turning decidedly against the opposition of late, and the recent U.S.-Russian standoff over former CIA agent Edward Snowden, the United States has been hoisted onto riding this “warhorse” of military strikes. At present, it seems that Obama can only spur this horse forward, or else he risks the United States losing prestige as a superpower.

However, the ramifications of attacking Syria will be relatively serious. Large-scale strikes will unquestionably prompt retaliation from Syria. The regime’s military is capable of spreading the flames of war to U.S. allies in the region such as Israel, Jordan and Turkey, and will certainly be aided by its staunchest allies, Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Although the United States will likely turn to long-range missile strikes, the 1,000-plus U.S. soldiers stationed at bases within Jordan are within striking range of Syrian missiles. Moreover, al-Qaida and other extremist elements that have long since established a presence in Syria will seize the opportunity to cause further disruption. But if the U.S. restricts strikes to a smaller scale, it will be unable to attain its strategic objective and at most will be giving Syria a symbolic slap on the wrist for crossing its “red line” as an excuse to back down. How to proceed with strikes against Syria has thus become quite a pressing conundrum for Obama.

The author is a senior research fellow with the Chahar Institute and researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences’ Institute of West Asian and African Studies.