Syria: The Road to Chemical Disarmament

Following President Barack Obama’s failure to gather support at the recent G-20 summit for an armed attack against the Syrian government — promoted despite growing signs that the chemical attacks carried out could have been perpetrated by the rebels fighting the Damascus regime — it seemed inevitable that the current tenant of the White House would embark on a solitary warpath in which he let himself get trapped. It seemed unavoidable that he would enter the territory of the international police because of a lack of insight, succumbing to pressure from the Washington hawks and the country’s military-industrial complex (which is always keen for new theaters of war where it can conduct business), the Israeli government’s plots or a combination of those factors.

In a speech last night, characteristic of those who choose to retreat with limited options available, Obama inexplicitly agreed on national television to allow time for negotiation within the U.N. Security Council to consider growing pressures and to wait for others to arrive at the decision to demand that the Syrian government give up the chemical weapons that it possesses. Nevertheless, he left open the door to what he called a limited military strike against targets in Damascus.

Fortunately, however, the prospect of U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict has been put on hold due to the alternative solution proposed by Russian diplomacy, i.e. that Washington immediately let go of its determination to bomb government targets in the Arab country and that the Bashar Assad regime agree to put its chemical weapon stockpiles under international supervision.

A few hours earlier, French President François Hollande, the only key U.S. ally to second Obama’s misguided intention — since the British government had its hands tied by its parliament refusing to join the attack — had no choice but to recognize, through Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, the feasibility of diplomatic channels to address the issue of the use of chemical weapons in the conflict.

Even if in the coming days events in the Syrian conflict continue via diplomatic negotiations and dissipate the threats of a U.S. attack, which were caused by the attacks on the outskirts of Damascus (or at least that was its excuse), the regional strategic balance will still fall in favor of Israel. With the Syrian government deprived of its chemical arsenal, there will be no deterrent power to act as a counterbalance to Tel Aviv’s nuclear weapons. On one hand, this could encourage permanent warmongering from the Israeli government. On the other hand, it could prompt Iran to realign its atomic program for energy generation purposes instead of manufacturing nuclear weapons in an attempt to restore the military balance in the area.

In sum, although it should welcome the prospect of bringing an end to threats of American intervention in a region and country that has enough war and violence as it is, this does not mean that it has made progress in resolving the underlying conflict. The Syrian civil war continues and the Middle East is still one of the most explosive areas of the planet.