On Syrian Chemical Weapons

                Recently, reports have come out indicating that regime forces may be planning to put sarin gas in the bombs they drop on rebel troops (and – possibly – rebel held cities). While such an event would undoubtedly lead to tragedy, some commentators seem unsure as to why countries like the United Sates would draw the line at chemical weapons when the Syrian forces have already been so indiscriminate in their attacks on Syrian citizens. After all, it seems somewhat obtuse to worry so much about the means by which Syrian citizens are murdered instead of the fact that they are being murdered. Thus the question becomes why the United States and other Western nations are so up in arms over the question of chemical weapons.

                The most straightforward answer is that the Obama really does believe that the use of chemical weapons is qualitatively different than the use of conventional weapons. This view is far from unreasonable; chemical weapons are banned by international law while weapons like machine guns and conventional bombs are not. The regime’s forces have hardly been circumspect about civilian casualties, but the use of chemical weapons – especially in one of Syria’s densely populated, urban battlegrounds – would likely cause far greater loss of life than has been seen up to this point.

                Another reason that Obama is protesting so much may be as a run up to an intervention. It’s likely Obama has given serious thought to some sort of military intervention in Syria, but most observers have concluded that is reluctant to intervene because any military operation in Syria would present myriad difficulties in its execution. However, it’s possible that the Obama team has decided that the logistical and military difficulties could be overcome, but that it would be politically impossible to get the security council to authorize any sort of intervention. This newest development might change this calculus because, again, the use of chemical weapons is a clear and established violation of international law. Before, Syria excuse its actions as necessary to maintain control over its territory, but now Syria seems to be in the position of taking action that would clearly override its sovereign rights. Western diplomats may be trying to make it as politically difficult as possible for Russia and China to keep blocking a security council approved intervention in the event of a chemical attack.

                Alternatively, Washington may think that the rebels are already winning in Syria, and that it will only be a matter of time until Assad is deposed. This would certainly be the ideal result from the perspective of the United States. Any military operation in Syria would be quite risky, and Washington would certainly prefer to do nothing while still accomplishing its goals. However, the use of chemical weapons might be able to turn the tide against the rebels, and bolster Syria’s faltering government.

                One more factor that should not be forgotten is the effect this issue might have on Iran. If the Assad regime is able to use WMD on its own population, without any significant retaliation from the international community, then the Iranians might begin to discount Obama’s threats of war if they pursue their own WMD as a bluff. It’s possible that the Obama administration is trying desperately to ensure that Syria doesn’t use chemical weapons because they would then be faced with the choice of either starting a war they don’t really want or their threats against Iran losing credibility.