Why Does Inaction on Syrian Chemical Weapons Use Matter?

I tried to think of an idea to write about that was important and almost everything I thought about came back to the situation of the use by Syrian troops loyal to Bashir al-Assad of chemical weapons. The problem is that when one thinks about this subject, it just does not appear all that overly vital yet it affects every other problem in one way or another. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the entire Syrian civil war touches on every vital subject facing the world at the moment. It ties to the terror bombing in Boston as the arch-terror group Hezballah is actively aiding the Syrian forces loyal to al-Assad and are responsible for most of their gains of late. It reflects on the problems in Egypt and Tunisia as the Muslim Brotherhood which currently rules both of these countries is the main impetus behind one of the two major rebel factions trying to overthrow al-Assad. On the human rights front, what could be a bigger situation for them to address than the over seventy-thousand civilians murdered and the many millions forced into refugee camps by the Syrian civil war, yet despite this the main impetus of human rights remains obsessively focused on the purported evil acts of the Israelis. But what is likely the most central importance over Syria has to do that the outcome in Syria is seen as the most central item currently addressable regarding Iran and the entire Iran-North Korea alliance which is by far the biggest threat to the world currently.

 

What I find most interesting about the Iran-North Korea alliance is how everybody attempts to separate these two problems and behave as if one has nothing to do with the other. This would be like pretending that in World War II the Japanese had nothing to do with the Germans except that Iran and North Korea are far more intertwined than they were. It is ridiculous to address the missile problem posed by North Korea while ignoring the joint research being performed largely in Iran to improve both countries missile technologies and upgrade their missile systems with longer range and more accurate heavy launch systems along with increased diversity of missile weapons systems for multiple and varied uses. Even more evident is how both Iran and North Korea have been interdependent in their pursuit of nuclear weapons as most of the research into nuclear weapons constructions has been carried out almost exclusively of late in North Korea while uranium enrichment as well as plutonium manufacturing have been pursued full-bore in Iran. Yet despite the evidence the United States and their allies have been addressing these two as completely separate threats rather than a unified front who are mutually supportive in aims of the same ends. The strongest evidence of their mutual cooperation leads us back to Syria and the fact that as Iran supplies Syria with weapons, intelligence reports, and manpower in their civil war, it was North Korea who provided Syria with their nuclear facility that Israel destroyed back on September 6, 2007.

 

But despite all of this evidence, it is the seeming lack of resolve in addressing the Syrian blatant disregard of the warnings over utilizing their chemical weapons stores that presents the biggest situational difficulty. It is blatantly obvious that the weakest link in the Iran-North Korea alliance is definitely Syria but that it is also a vital link in their chain which connects them to the Mediterranean Sea through Syria and Lebanon which is controlled for Iran by Hezballah. Syria is very much like Italy was to the German-Japanese alliance in World War II in that Italy guarded the underbelly of the European theater, Syria is the vital link to the Mediterranean Sea and through that the Atlantic Ocean as well as all of Europe. The threat to act against Syria and al-Assad if and when he introduced chemical weapons into the Syrian civil war was less important strategically about protecting the Syrian battlefield from such threats as it was about being the wedge that allowed for a casus-belli for intervention leading to the removal of Bashir al-Assad from power thus breaking the link for the Iran-North Korea axis connecting them to their Mediterranean ports and the Hezballah who serve as their enforcers. Losing their Syrian connection also wounds the Iranian Shiite alliance from their crescent of power that stems from Iran across Iraq, Syria and Lebanon presently and thus allows Iran to have influence and the ability to apply pressure throughout the Arab World and most of the Muslim world. Syria and the Mediterranean ports are also vital for the growth of the Iranian influence in South America which they have been carefully and slowly cultivating and growing for the past decade. For these reasons as well as the human rights and prevention of the potential catastrophe that could result from chemical weapons attacks make Syria the center-point of too much of the current world situation to not make each and every step well thought out and treated as the crucial elements that they are.

 

Despite all that is resting on the outcome of the Syrian civil war, President Obama appears to be taking the most passive interest in responding to the latest reports of chemical weapons use by al-Assad despite the hard evidence presented that Sarin gas was utilized. The reports of such use came from Israeli, British and French intelligence sources and not simply made by the rebel forces that could be doubted due their interest in removing al-Assad by any means available. President Obama not only reacted to this evidence by not taking any actions which would indicate the possibility of a military response, but simply restated his warning of dire consequences should chemical weapons be used by any side in the Syrian civil war. By refusing to even place some military forces on a higher alert status signaling the readiness to take the steps necessary to interdict any further use of chemical weapons, President Obama has virtually given al-Assad a pass on using these weapons as long as it is not overt and made undeniable. Why the President would refute the evidence presented by every allied intelligence report and allow al-Assad a pass is honestly disturbing. Such inaction could lead to wonder as to what outcome the United States would prefer to come as a result of the fighting in Syria. Could President Obama desire to simply allow the fighting to continue in order to drain Iran of resources and force them to be tied down by the open front threatening their Syrian connections? Time will tell but should al-Assad take the inaction by President Obama as permission for more extensive use of chemical weapons in the fight against the rebel forces one can only fear the full repercussions and the potential for unimaginable horrors should such weapons be used in an overt fashion in order to turn the tide and go for a quick end to the rebel fight. The potentials for a humanitarian disaster are too great for such a risky route to be taken. President Obama might still have an opportunity to enforce his edict of not accepting any chemical weapons usage before more general use is implemented and all the horrific consequences to the Syrian people become realized. Nobody could desire the consequences of the liberal use of such weapons and the indiscriminate and horrendous death which can be so easily dispersed literally on the winds across large swaths leaving a desolate ruin in their wake.

 

Beyond the Cusp 

 

Empty Threats

President Obama has managed to take the full might and power of the United States of America and make it as impotent as a child who threatens to hold their breath until they turn blue. Once again this week President Obama stepped up and reiterated his willingness to act should Bashir Assad or either rebel group utilize any of Syria’s extensive stores of chemical weapons. His actions were necessitated by reports of possible use of said chemical weapons as reported by the intelligence agencies of France and Britain. These reports coincided with a more strongly worded statement from the head of Israeli military intelligence that President Bashir Assad had indeed used his chemical weapons. The Israeli communicated that they had proof that Syrian troops had released Sarin nerve agent on two occasions and not just military grade tear gas whose use had been reported earlier. This was likely stressed as President Obama had discounted the use of the military grade tear gas as not being sufficient to cross President Obama’s red line on chemical weapon use. The Israeli report was initially confirmed by United States Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel who later retreated from his position claiming to have been surprised by the Israeli claim as they had not informed him while he had been visiting Israel earlier on the week. So, where does that leave things?

 

The thing about the Israeli claim is it was backed up by the Syrian rebel forces which are currently receiving nonlethal supplies from Western powers when they admitted to knowledge that Israeli agents were working within Syria and would quite likely have first-hand evidence of any chemical weapons use. For the rebels to actually admit to the presence of Israelis inside Syria is a rather bold statement that would not be issued lightly. Despite the mounting evidence that Bashir Assad has resorted to using his chemical weapons, President Obama has chosen inaction and a simple restatement of his initial threat that any use of chemical weapons by either side would result in immediate action by the United States. When the initial reports of potential use of chemical weapons was issued by Britain and France President Obama requested clarification as to which chemicals were known to have been released. When it was then reported that there were suspicions of possible caustic chemicals as well as the aforementioned tear gas, President Obama dismissed the rumored use of caustic agents dismissing them as equally possible industrial chemicals such as chlorine being accidentally released as a result of the use of explosive munitions. When President Obama backed off these initial reports it might have been understandable that the American threshold to qualify as chemical weapons use was higher than that of their European allies and Israel. But with the reports of Sarin gas being released on the battlefields of Syria one might expect a reaction from the United States at least somewhat stronger than words, especially a stale repetition of the President’s original warnings. Does President Obama really believe that setting a red line and then when it is violated, simply resetting the red line will gain respect from the likes of Bashir Assad, a treacherous dictator who has already murdered tens of thousands of his own countrymen and sent millions into exile will recoil in fear from mere words that President Obama has given indication he never intended to back with actual actions?

 

And Bashir Assad is far from the only world leader watching to see if President Obama is a credible leader who backs his words with actions. There is always North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un, another one who likes to hear himself threaten. The one thing absolutely necessary to keep the likes of Kim Jong-Un impotent is to mean action when one threatens to use it. If Kim Jong-Un expects for a minute that any threat of action by the United States is not going to be actually executed, then he is very likely to act on his threats in the belief that there would be no real consequences. And Kim Jong-Un is not the most dangerous of threats on the international stage. There is Iran and the Ayatollahs with their nuclear project which thus far words have proven to be less than useless, yet here too President Obama appears to be satisfied to talk until a nuclear Iran is a verified fact and a half a dozen cities around the world lie as smoldering ruins. With new leadership in Mainland China there is a need for the words of the President of the United States to have great weight, not great doubts. It is for exactly such reasons that President Obama must not allow his word to become a matter for questions rather than being taken at face value and his every word heeded. It is for reasons of credibility that President Obama may find necessity requiring him to act against the Syrian chemical weapons threat. It is not necessary for United States military forces to put boots on the ground as all that is required to fulfill President Obama’s warnings against the use of chemical weapons would be to destroy the chemical weapon storage facilities. My bet would be that should President Obama decide to commit a couple of B-2 stealth bombers, as he did in a show of strength to Kim Jong-Un, to actually bomb the Syrian chemical weapon stores, Israel would be more than agreeable to provide accurate coordinates and might even offer to turn off the Syrian radar grid, though such would not be really necessary with stealth bombers. The old children’s rhyme, “Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me,” does not apply in the realm of world politics where words can do one great harm, even break more than bones.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Middle East One Year After a Nuclear Iran

Everyone has given their picture of the horrors which would follow a nuclear armed Iran. Most of these warnings point to the possibility of Iran distributing their nuclear capabilities to their closest allies Syria and Hezballah in Lebanon. They explain how Iran might choose to attack Israel with a nuclear device smuggled into Israel by Hezballah in the north, by Hamas from the southwest, or Bedouins or others from within the Sinai Peninsula in the south. They mention that Iran could threaten Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, the UAE, and Bahrain with severe and dire consequences while loosing the Shiite populations in each country to serve whatever ends the Ayatollahs decide. Where these scenarios are troubling enough, they completely miss a far worse situation which is actually more likely. There have been some who have hinted at these problems but they warrant retelling.

 

All of the Sunni nations in the Middle East are fully aware of the threat they would face should Iran become a nuclear armed nation. The struggle for supremacy between Shiite and Sunnis Islam would become far more competitive with Iran having nuclear weapons with which to threaten the major Sunni powers who currently enjoy a measure of preeminence provided by their oil wealth. What has been omitted from many explanations of a future after Iran goes nuclear is that when Pakistan faced a nuclear armed India they went on an emergency nuclear weapons development program. This was an exceedingly costly program far beyond anything the Pakistani government could ever have afforded. Enter the ever helpful but not too egalitarian Saudis with all the cash that Pakistan would need. There was a very simple price for the assistance of the Saudis, the promise of nuclear weapons on demand should Saudi Arabia ever find themselves on the wrong end of a nuclear situation, say like Iranian threats. This agreement would provide the Saudis with a number of operative nuclear weapons along with the plans for building their own weapons once they put the processing and other required productions into place. There have been numerous conjectures to the number of weapons which would be provided the Saudis on demand with a dozen being the median figure which would be more than sufficient to keep Iran in check while the Saudis brought their own nuclear weapons program online. But the Saudis are but the first in a line of new nuclear powers which would result from a nuclear Iran.

 

There are other countries who would feel compelled to reply to a nuclear Iran by immediately developing their own nuclear arsenals. The idea that every nation in the Middle East, and even further, would be satisfied to rely on the United States nuclear umbrella to keep them safe is a foolish and silly belief. For starters, any nation which currently views themselves as being major players in the Middle East would take a nuclear armed Iran as an unacceptable challenge to their place in the order of the Middle East. Of these the first two which come to mind are Turkey and Egypt. Turkey and Egypt both have sufficient technology available to them to produce their own nuclear weaponry within a nominal amount of time, likely less than three years from inception to production of their first two or three devices. They would require negligible research times as access to plans for a nuclear weapon are readily available to any nation with sufficient money. The readily available sources for such plans are well known and include but are not limited to North Korea, Pakistan, China, Russia, and other former Soviet countries. Even without any assistance from a current nuclear power the designs for a simple nuclear device are readily available on the internet though not necessarily in sufficient detail to assemble one straight off those plans. But with sufficient engineering and nuclear physics expertise, nuclear weapon designs require mere months to successfully develop. With computer aided design it becomes even more readily accomplishable. But who else might decide they were in need of a nuclear arsenal should Iran complete their nuclear weapons plans?

 

The first suspects would likely be many European countries; especially Germany, Poland, Romania, and very likely all of the rest would either desire their own or would ally forming treaties of mutual protection with neighboring countries that were developing such weapons. England and France would likely resume building nuclear weapons and update any nuclear weapons they currently hold. Once any of the nations of North Africa developed nuclear weapons they might start a nuclear arms race through the rest of Africa. South Africa was once a nuclear power and who knows where those plans are now. Then one needs to reevaluate the equation even if only three or four nations in Africa manage to go nuclear and also look to Asia and South America. If Iran is allowed to go nuclear then the entirety of Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty goes out the window and a truly horrific domino theory will come to fruition. Such a world becomes the most ominous threat condition from which mankind may cease to exist along with near extinction event enveloping the world. Many of the nations which would become nuclear armed and enabled were either nonexistent or uninterested in the last World War and may not have taken the lesson of Nagasaki and Hiroshima to heart as those nations involved in World War II.

 

The United States and allies faced off against the Soviet Union and its allies in a nuclear standoff in which great care and mechanisms were built in to assure that no accidental confrontation would occur. Even with these precautions there were a number of times when the two sides came perilously close to the brink but fortunately never went beyond the cusp and committed their nuclear response. Once even one-third of the nations of the world possess nuclear weaponry the possibility of either a mistake or an intentional use of nuclear weapons would simply become a matter of time. Once one nation utilized nuclear weapons then either the attacked nation and the nations with which they have mutual defense treaties either respond in kind leading to an ever escalating nuclear conflagration or they stand down at which point every other nations’ nuclear deterrent becomes just one small bit less effective. Once a nation and their allies allow a nuclear attack to go without a response in kind then it becomes a measured consideration which would make the offensive use of nuclear weapons just a small amount more tempting. Since mankind has always used the weapon of previously unequaled destruction which ended the previous war to start the next war, how long before nuclear weapons become the first strike weapon of choice? Look at the evidence, the Ancient Greek used the Phalanx which was perfected by the Romans. World War I brought into use tanks and aircraft and World War II revolved around armor, bombers, and fighter aircraft. World War I used dreadnaughts which were the follow-up to the ironclads and metal warships of the American Civil War and the other wars between then and the outbreak of World War I. It may have been inevitable once mankind invented the nuclear weapon that it would be the weapon of initiation for World War III which may very likely be World War Last until the next intelligent species rises from the mire left afterwards. Maybe we should press for more actions to be committed for preventing Iran or anybody else developing and building nuclear weapons.

 

Beyond the Cusp