Almost exactly one year ago, on August 20, 2012, US President Barack Obama said during a press conference at the White House:
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is when we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilised. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
Well, it seems that this red line has now been crossed. Last Wednesday Syria’s rebels claimed 1,300 people, including women and children, were killed as a result of a horrific chemical weapons rocket attack in a residential area in the suburbs of Damascus.
Although this horrendous attack, which allegedly took place in the middle of the night, has not yet been independently verified, many experts are convinced that a nerve agent may indeed have been used. Many amateur video reports are now available online about the alleged chemical weapons attack.
The Syrian opposition said the nerve agent Sarin was used in the chemical weapons attack, which is one of the most toxic of the known chemical warfare agents. Once a person has breathed in Sarin, death can occur within one to 10 minutes if there is no treatment.
Such an attack, if true, represents the worst known use of chemical weapons since Saddam Hussein killed thousands of Kurds in Halabja in 1988 through a poison gas attack.
It also represents a huge defiance by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of the outside world, one that just might spur the international community to take some sort of action in Syria, however difficult the options may seem.
The UK, France and Turkey are leading calls for a tough international response to the chemical weapons attack.
Obama, who cannot escape from his “red line” comment last year, has so far said the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syria is “a big event of grave concern” and wants the UN to investigate this atrocity.
Britain is also insisting that UN weapons inspectors already in Syria should be granted access to the site of the attack, while French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said that if proven, the attacks would deserve a “reaction of force”.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu stressed the need for action saying: “All red lines have been crossed but still the UN Security Council has not even been able to take a decision.”
Significantly, Russia has also urged Syria to allow the UN team to investigate the allegations about the chemical attack. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov agreed with US Secretary of State John Kerry who said an objective investigation was needed.
The big question now is: now what? Can some sort of military intervention in Syria, so late in the day, actually make a difference at this stage of the conflict? Or will it make the situation worse? Any military action will have to be led by the US, not because America is responsible for this mess – the Russians are clearly to blame for vetoing every UN resolution on Syria from day one of the conflict – but because people expect the US, as the world’s most powerful democracy, to act when a humanitarian crisis erupts.
All the options are very costly and are risky
There is also, of course, Obama’s “red line” comment made last year which now obliges him to do something about this terrible situation. Obama has been very cautious on Syria; actually he has been, in my opinion, too cautious. He is obviously conditioned to a great extent by Afghanistan and Iraq (not necessarily a bad thing), and does not want to get bogged down in a complicated sectarian war with vast regional complications.
Even if the options are limited Obama now has to do something. He drew a red line last year, and if he does nothing the credibility of the US will suffer greatly. If the words of the President of the US, the world’s only superpower, do not carry weight, then the whole international community will lose out. The wrong signals will be sent out to all the world’s dictators who will feel they can act with immunity.
Obama’s response must be on two fronts. He must continue to pursue the diplomatic option and try to convene the Geneva conference on Syria, which has been postponed on a number of occasions.
He also needs to involve countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Russia and Iran in trying to find a solution, besides his traditional allies.
However, the US must now really give a serious consideration to resorting to some sort of military action, preferably with its Nato and Arab allies, to stop the killing in Syria. It is widely assumed that the US, together with some of its regional allies, is already training, advising and assisting the moderate Syrian rebel forces. This should be stepped up.
What needs to be considered now is the limited use of air strikes to prevent the Syrian regime from conducting military operations, especially where civilians are concerned, and where chemical weapons are involved. This has its risks, of course, because it could draw in other powers into the conflict.
The establishment of a no-fly zone, preferably with UN approval, but not necessarily, is another option. This would eliminate the regime’s ability to bomb opposition strongholds by air. This was successfully done in Libya, but it might not be as straightforward in Syria as the regime relies heavily on artillery and ground-launched missiles.
Buffer zones could also be established, along the borders with Turkey or Jordan, where US forces could safely train Syrian rebels and which could serve as ‘safe zones’ for the distribution of humanitarian assistance. This is probably the most risky option as it will need to involve thousands of US and other troops.
All these options, however, are risky and very costly. Assad has shown no sign of capitulating and is strongly backed by Iran and Russia. Hizbollah, which already has thousands of fighters in Syria, could continue to cause trouble in Lebanon and Israel.
Some of the rebels’ ranks have been infiltrated by Islamic jihadists allied to al-Qaeda, who are no friends of the West and who would be worse than Assad.
No options are easy, but the situation is getting out of hand. The UN said last week that one million Syrian children have already fled as refugees. It is time for new thinking on Syria, however limited the options are.