Chemical reaction

It is difficult to believe that Bashar al Asad’s regime would use chemical weapons in a rural area on the outskirts of Damascus a day or so after the arrival of a UN chemical weapons inspection team.  But that is apparently what he has done.  Hundreds are reported dead.  If this claim proves true, what are the options for the Obama administration?

1. Do nothing.  The administration has already ignored well-documented reports of chemical weapons use over the past year.  Failing to react with anything but verbal condemnation will not stop the practice, but it would avoid a tussle with the Russians and limit US commitments.
2. Try to get a UN Security Council resolution authorizing use of force or expanding sanctions.  The Russians are unlikely to permit a resolution that goes that far, but it might be possible to get one that denounces the Asad regime and puts it on the diplomatic defensive, whatever good that will do.
3. Press harder to convene peace talks.  The Administration remains committed to following up the June 2012 Geneva communique by convening peace talks aimed at implementing a negotiated solution in which Bashar al Asad would have to surrender power to an interim government.  Prospects for such talks are bleak (and the date has been postponed to the fall).
4. Accelerate provision of weapons to the Syrian opposition.  Washington, after indicating this spring it would arm the opposition in response to earlier reports of chemical weapons use, seems to have gotten cold feet, largely because of the prospect the arms would fall into extremist hands.  Ignoring that prospect is risky.
5. Attack Syrian missile and air force assets, even without UNSC authorization.  Such an attack could be limited to the facilities thought to have originated chemical weapons attacks, or it could be much wider.  Damaging the regime’s capability of reaching out to attack “liberated” areas could help the opposition gain strategic advantage, but doing it without UNSC authorization would trigger Russian responses Washington won’t like.
6. Impose a “no fly, no missile” zone over all or part of Syria.  This would require constant patrolling by US air assets that would be at risk of attack by Syria’s supposedly strong air defenses (which however have not responded to several Israeli attacks).

None of these propositions are very attractive, especially if you regard Iran’s nuclear program and American withdrawal from Afghanistan as far more important.  Both require Russian cooperation that may not be available if the Americans decide to act unilaterally on Syria.

Weighing in favor of US action is the humanitarian situation and its impact on Syria’s neighbors.  The US will spend upwards of $1 billion this year on humanitarian relief for the millions of Syrian refugees, internally displaced and needy whom Bashar al Asad has created with his effort to reassert governing authority in a country that has rejected his rule.  A billion this year and a couple of billion next year.  We are talking real money out of your taxpayer pocket.

More important for US strategic interests is the impact on neighboring countries.  Iraq is suffering a sharp rise in Sunni terrorist attacks that stem from revival of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has extended itself also into Syria.  Jordan is facing a colossal burden from hundreds of thousands of refugees, as is Lebanon, whose Hizbollah and Sunni militia forces are battling both inside Syria and sometimes at home.  The Kurds of Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey will be meeting August 24 in Erbil to discuss strategy, which for the moment aims at Kurdish federal units within existing states.  But if those states start to collapse, can an effort at Kurdish union be far behind?

The notion that Syria is not a priority can only be sustained if the trouble it causes can be contained.  It is looking as if that is no longer going to be possible.  It is time for the Obama administration to react to the use of chemical weapons, if confirmed.  My own preference is number 5 above.

PS:  Please do not look at these pictures that purport to be the results of the chemical attack today if you are at all squeamish about seeing dead people.

PPS:  To cheer you up, try this from May, via Mike Doran: