Syria and chemical weapons
S P SETH
The US is under concerted pressure from its allies
to jump into the Syrian civil war on behalf of the rebels. It is already
supporting the overthrow of the Bashar al-Assad regime in all sorts of ways,
just short of indiscriminate supply of arms to the rebels. Indeed, the CIA is
involved in facilitating the supply of US arms through third parties, like
Qatar, Jordan, Turkey and so on. But after its bitter experiences of the Afghan
and Iraq wars, it is sensibly keen to avoid another quagmire in Syria, though
it is difficult to say if it will stick to that resolve. The US is deeply
worried about the direction that a post-Assad Syria might take.
This was reflected in President Obama’s recent talks
at the White House with the visiting emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamid bin Khalifa al
Thani. President Obama said that their two nations had been discussing the best
way to remove Assad and “strengthen an opposition that can bring about a
democratic Syria that represents all people and respects their rights.” The US,
like Qatar, and most Arab countries, plus Turkey, are committed to remove Assad
but what will replace him is the key issue?
Whether or not the US gets directly involved, by way
of supplying arms directly to the rebels, will be influenced greatly by the
credible evidence about the alleged use by the regime of chemical weapons. Britain
and France appear inclined to this view, as do the Arab countries supporting
rebels. The Assad regime, on the other hand, is accusing the rebels of using
chemical stuff. It has dismissed the allegation against it as a “barefaced
lie”.
Israel too has chipped in to accuse the Assad regime
of using chemical weapons. According to General Itai Brun, chief of research
and analysis for the Israeli army’s military intelligence division, “To the
best of our professional understanding, the regime used chemical weapons
against fighters in a series of incidents in recent months.” Elaborating, he
said, “The dilated pupils, the frothing at the mouth and other signs testify,
in our view, to the use of liquid chemical weapons, apparently sarin.” But
there is no concrete evidence to support this.
Indeed, according to John Kerry, US Secretary of
State, Prime Minister Netanyahu was unable to confirm reports of Syria’s use of
chemical weapons in his phone call to the Israeli leader. Similarly, the US
Defence Secretary, Chuck Hagel, said in Cairo, after meeting Egyptian President
Mohammed Morsi, that, “When I was in Israel, they did not give me that assessment.”
And he added, “This is a serious business and you want to be as sure as you can
be on these kinds of things. Suspicions are one thing, evidence is another.”
But the Obama administration remains under intense
pressure, internally and externally, to act directly against the Assad regime.
Internally, powerful Republicans like, John McCain, a former presidential
candidate, favours the Libyan model of establishing safe operational corridors for
rebels to operate, a no fly-zone and arming the rebels. He has invoked Obama’s
warning that if the Assad regime were to use chemical weapons against its
people (as they have done, according to him), it will constitute a “red line”
for US intervention. Within the US intelligence community too, there is growing
belief with “varying degrees of confidence” that the regime did use chemical
weapons.
Externally, the United Kingdom and France too seem to believe
that the Assad regime, most likely, used chemical weapons last month in Aleppo
and outskirts of Damascus. And now Israel has come out with its assessment
about the regime’s culpability.
But one has to be very careful about Israeli intelligence. Even the US,
its protector and ally, is not persuaded by it. At the best of times, Israel’s bonafides
are suspect on issues relating to the Middle East. And what is happening in
Syria today is probably the worst of times in that region.
For the most part, apart from bombing, as it did the
other day, suspected weapons supplies for Hezbollah in Lebanon, and occasional
shooting across the Golan Heights, Israel has so far largely stayed out of the
Syrian civil war. It would suit Tel Aviv to see its enemies, both the Syrian
regime and the rebels, tear out themselves in a fratricidal war. As for any
preference between the two, it would probably incline towards the Assad regime
that had kept a lid on the Syrian tinderbox that is now blowing up. What has then
led Israel to come out with its intelligence assessment on the use chemical
weapons?
An important, if not compelling, reason is that it
is extremely worried about the safety of the vast stockpile of chemical weapons
in Syria. It is, therefore, very keen for collaborative action, led by the US,
to secure these stockpiles. Up until recently, Syria’s chemical weapons have
been fairly secure. With the Syrian situation becoming unstable by the day and
the regime on the back foot, it is feared that they might be tempted to use
them as a last resort. If the claims about the recent use of sarin gas are
true, then it is a serious portent of things to come.
However, in the shifting sands of the Syrian
political and military landscape, were these weapons to fall under control of
the rebels, considering that the most effective elements among them are now the
jihadist groups, the question of securing chemical weapons would become even
more crucial. For Israel, right on Syria’s borders, some preemptive action to
stop the rebels from laying their hands on such explosive material might become
necessary.
Israel also fears that, in its dying days, the Assad
regime might seek to transfer some of these stocks to their Lebanese ally,
Hezbollah. Israel and Hezbollah have some serious unresolved business between
them. Israel had mounted a major invasion of Lebanon in 2006 inflicting death
and destruction. The subsequent reconstruction and rebuilding work was done
with considerable financial help from Iran. From Israel’s viewpoint, any
military action designed to secure chemical weapons will further weaken and/or
overthrow the Assad regime. Which will rupture the nexus between Iran, Syria
and the Hezbollah. The US and its allies in the west and the Middle East share
this strategic objective about the removal of the Assad regime. But as
Hezbollah has come out to support the Assad regime with its own volunteers and
militia, this will further plunge the Middle East into an even wider and bigger
disaster.
In this situation, Israel is keen that the matter of
chemical weapons in an unstable Syria be resolved, with or without real proof
of their use by the regime or the rebels. However, securing the weapons is not
going to be easy because they are scattered all over the place. Any large-scale
military action to secure them might result in large explosions and scattering
of the poisonous gases affecting friends and foes, as well as large-scale
casualties among the civilian population. Besides, to keep them safe and secure
will require stationing ground troops that would have the smell of the Afghan
and Iraqi quagmire which the United States would very much like to avoid. In
other words, there are no easy choices in Syria.
