The Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons would be “a game changer” said the US president, who is famously averse to military adventurism. Barack Obama was a harsh critic of the Iraq war, launched on a pack of fairy tales, and was reluctantly dragged into Libya by gung-ho France and Britain. However, he is presently in danger of being hoisted by his own petard towards intervention in Syria.
“Horrific as it is when mortars are being fired on civilians and people are being indiscriminately killed to use potential weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations crosses another line with respect to international norms and international law,” Obama announced subsequent to meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan on April 26. The same day, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney indicated US unilateral military intervention in the Syrian conflict (which by implication would bypass the United Nations) is one of the options on his boss’s table.
US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel also said US intelligence officials have ascertained with varying degrees of confidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria “on a small scale,” a claim supported by British Prime Minister David Cameron. Those assertions are primarily based on photographs taken by opposition fighters during a battle near Aleppo that occurred on March 19; to date UN investigators have not been given access to the zone in question to remove soil samples for testing.
So now that there’s a strong suspicion that the game has indeed changed due to (as yet unproven) indications that Bashar Al Assad has used liquid sarin, a nerve gas capable of causing convulsions, paralysis and respiratory failure, will Obama translate his warning into action and, even more to the point, should he?
Certainly, the US appears to be gearing up for such an eventuality despite a vehement denial from Syria’s Minister of Information who characterized the US accusation as “inconsistent with reality and a barefaced lie.”
The White House has stationed Patriot missiles on Turkey’s border with Syria and pressed Ankara and Tel Aviv to bury their animosity over Israel’s attack on a Turkish vessel seeking to break the siege of Gaza. Reports suggest that Israel and Turkey are beginning to share intelligence at the highest levels and Parliament has given a green light to their nation’s intervention.
Patriot missiles have also been relocated to northern Jordan facing Syria’s direction. An imminent deployment of up to 300 American troop specialists on Jordan’s border with Syria, believed to be paving the ground for a greater force contingent of up to 20,000, has elicited protests from Jordanians, who rallied in Amman on Friday shouting ‘US troops in Jordan is not in our national interests.’ Their concerns are understandable because, in the event of an all-out conflict, Jordan would be a target.
There are numerous schools of thought concerning the advisability of the US and its allies proactively putting an end to a raging civil war between government forces aided by Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah fighters on the one hand and the Free Syrian Army, loosely partnered with Jabhat Al Nusra jihadists together with Al Qaida clones.
Among those leading the charge are Israel-compliant US senators, such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who believe ousting the Al Assad regime would benefit Israel, as it would constitute a severe blow to Iran. However, many in the Israeli camp take the view ‘better the secularist devil we know’ than a government of extremists inclined to join hands with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist organisations throughout the Middle East and North Africa.
The danger is that Tehran and its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah won’t relinquish their grip on the Levant without a fight, a conflict that would inevitably draw in Israel’s participation—and in the worst case scenario, Russia which has lashed out at Washington’s chemical weapons claims. Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Mikhail Bogdanov, warned on Saturday that allegations of chemical weapons use should not be used as a pretext for foreign intervention in Syria.
Obama should carefully weigh the pros and cons before proceeding and if he insists on holding up red lines then he must be willing to follow through when they’re crossed else risk his credibility being shot. He has an unenviable dilemma. He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
If he does nothing, the US will be blamed for being a bystander to crimes against humanity and a manmade humanitarian disaster of epic proportions.
If he pulls the trigger igniting a major regional conflagration or creating the unforeseen consequences of Syria being split up into sectarian enclaves or giving Damascus to Islamists, he will slink out of the Oval Office when his term ends like his predecessor George W. Bush with his reputation forever scarred.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
RSS
Barack Obama’s ‘Syria red line’ returns to haunt him
Posted on April 30, 2013 by Linda S. Heard
The Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons would be “a game changer” said the US president, who is famously averse to military adventurism. Barack Obama was a harsh critic of the Iraq war, launched on a pack of fairy tales, and was reluctantly dragged into Libya by gung-ho France and Britain. However, he is presently in danger of being hoisted by his own petard towards intervention in Syria.
“Horrific as it is when mortars are being fired on civilians and people are being indiscriminately killed to use potential weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations crosses another line with respect to international norms and international law,” Obama announced subsequent to meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan on April 26. The same day, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney indicated US unilateral military intervention in the Syrian conflict (which by implication would bypass the United Nations) is one of the options on his boss’s table.
US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel also said US intelligence officials have ascertained with varying degrees of confidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria “on a small scale,” a claim supported by British Prime Minister David Cameron. Those assertions are primarily based on photographs taken by opposition fighters during a battle near Aleppo that occurred on March 19; to date UN investigators have not been given access to the zone in question to remove soil samples for testing.
So now that there’s a strong suspicion that the game has indeed changed due to (as yet unproven) indications that Bashar Al Assad has used liquid sarin, a nerve gas capable of causing convulsions, paralysis and respiratory failure, will Obama translate his warning into action and, even more to the point, should he?
Certainly, the US appears to be gearing up for such an eventuality despite a vehement denial from Syria’s Minister of Information who characterized the US accusation as “inconsistent with reality and a barefaced lie.”
The White House has stationed Patriot missiles on Turkey’s border with Syria and pressed Ankara and Tel Aviv to bury their animosity over Israel’s attack on a Turkish vessel seeking to break the siege of Gaza. Reports suggest that Israel and Turkey are beginning to share intelligence at the highest levels and Parliament has given a green light to their nation’s intervention.
Patriot missiles have also been relocated to northern Jordan facing Syria’s direction. An imminent deployment of up to 300 American troop specialists on Jordan’s border with Syria, believed to be paving the ground for a greater force contingent of up to 20,000, has elicited protests from Jordanians, who rallied in Amman on Friday shouting ‘US troops in Jordan is not in our national interests.’ Their concerns are understandable because, in the event of an all-out conflict, Jordan would be a target.
There are numerous schools of thought concerning the advisability of the US and its allies proactively putting an end to a raging civil war between government forces aided by Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah fighters on the one hand and the Free Syrian Army, loosely partnered with Jabhat Al Nusra jihadists together with Al Qaida clones.
Among those leading the charge are Israel-compliant US senators, such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who believe ousting the Al Assad regime would benefit Israel, as it would constitute a severe blow to Iran. However, many in the Israeli camp take the view ‘better the secularist devil we know’ than a government of extremists inclined to join hands with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist organisations throughout the Middle East and North Africa.
The danger is that Tehran and its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah won’t relinquish their grip on the Levant without a fight, a conflict that would inevitably draw in Israel’s participation—and in the worst case scenario, Russia which has lashed out at Washington’s chemical weapons claims. Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Mikhail Bogdanov, warned on Saturday that allegations of chemical weapons use should not be used as a pretext for foreign intervention in Syria.
Obama should carefully weigh the pros and cons before proceeding and if he insists on holding up red lines then he must be willing to follow through when they’re crossed else risk his credibility being shot. He has an unenviable dilemma. He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
If he does nothing, the US will be blamed for being a bystander to crimes against humanity and a manmade humanitarian disaster of epic proportions.
If he pulls the trigger igniting a major regional conflagration or creating the unforeseen consequences of Syria being split up into sectarian enclaves or giving Damascus to Islamists, he will slink out of the Oval Office when his term ends like his predecessor George W. Bush with his reputation forever scarred.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.