SALON

Thursday, Dec 6, 2012 7:55 PM UTC

Has Syria crossed the chemical weapon “red line”?

Reports of Assad's nerve gas bombs have U.S. officials "concerned," but why the focus on chemical warfare?

By

Topics: Syria, Chemical weapons, Terrorism, Nerve gas, Leon Panetta, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bashar al-Assad, Middle East, Turkey, Free Syrian Army, Civil War, Red line,

Has Syria crossed the chemical weapon (Credit: AP)

U.S. officials reported that Syria’s government is preparing nerve gas bombs and would use chemical weapons against its own people. According to an NBC report, “The [Syrian] military has loaded the precursor chemicals for sarin, a deadly nerve gas, into aerial bombs that could be dropped onto the Syrian people from dozens of fighter-bombers, the officials said.”

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta followed up the reports Thursday, noting “we are very concerned that as the opposition advances particularly on Damascus that the regime might very well consider the use of chemical weapons.”

Chemical weapons have for the U.S. been an expressed “red line” in regards to Syria. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated previously that should Assad deploy chemical weapons against his people, “suffice to say we are certainly planning to take action.”

But what sort of “action” is yet unspecified. Furthermore there are lingering questions as to why the U.S. has focused on chemical weapons in particular.

Syrian government officials have already denied U.S. reports about nerve gas bombs. “Syria stresses again, for the tenth, the hundredth time, that if we had such weapons, they would not be used against its people. We would not commit suicide,” said the Assad regime’s deputy foreign minister Faisal Maqdad. “We fear there is a conspiracy to provide a pretext for any subsequent interventions in Syria by these countries that are increasing pressure on Syria,” he had.

NATO has moved forward with its plan to place Patriot missiles and troops along Syria’s border with Turkey to protect against potential attacks, but the AP suggested that the limited scope of the operation “reflects the low appetite in Western capitals for direct military intervention in the civil war.”

A number of commentators have noted that the Obama administration have been problematically quiet on the reasons for the chemical “red line.” An estimated 40,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the conflict — why should it matter is it be by rocket, bullet or deadly nerve gas? Foreign Policy’s blog suggested that the “red line” could be less about civilian deaths and more about warning Assad to keep chemical and biological weapons out of the hands of Islamist militants:

Syria’s robust chemical weapons program, with an estimated budget of $2 billion, has produced hundreds of tons of Sarin and VX — the most toxic nerve agent ever synthesized. Hezbollah, a militant organization with a record of attacking civilians, is now fighting on the Assad regime’s behalf in Syria and has established training camps near CBW sites. Foreign jihadist fighters, which are playing an increasingly important role in the Syrian opposition, could present an equally dire threat.

Foreign Policy notes, however, that intervention in the civil war on based on keeping chemical weapons out of Islamist terrorist hands “would risk resurrecting the deeply flawed Bush doctrine of preemptive self-defense.”

Political scientist Dominic Tierney wrote in the Atlantic that the chemical “red line” was rooted in the U.S.’s “strategic self-interest”:

Powerful countries like the United States cultivate a taboo against using WMD partly because they have a vast advantage in conventional arms. We want to draw stark lines around acceptable and unacceptable kinds of warfare because the terrain that we carve out is strategically favorable. Washington can defeat most enemy states in a few days–unless the adversary uses WMD to level the playing field.

Meanwhile, despite concerns over nerve gas bombs, the latest reports have not prompted a significant push towards military intervention. Rather, more diplomatic strategizing is underway in Ireland, where Hillary Clinton joined Russia’s foreign minister and the U.N. peace envoy to Syria to hash out a strategy over the beleaguered country. The U.S. has criticized Russia for shielding Syria from censure in the U.N. earlier this year. However, with Assad’s regime edging closer to collapse as rebels capture key positions in Damascus, it is likely that the Irish discussions are focusing on how to deal with Syria once the government is toppled, rather than military intervention against Assad.

Continue Reading Close

Natasha Lennard is an assistant news editor at Salon, covering non-electoral politics, general news and rabble-rousing. Follow her on Twitter @natashalennard, email nlennard@salon.com. More Natasha Lennard.

Next Article

Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

What To Read Awards: Top 10 Books of 2012 slide show

close X
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • Thumbnails
  • Fullscreen
  • 1 of 10
  • 10. "The Guardians" by Sarah Manguso: "Though Sarah Manguso’s 'The Guardians' is specifically about losing a dear friend to suicide, she pries open her intelligent heart to describe our strange, sad modern lives. I think about the small resonating moments of Manguso’s narrative every day." -- M. Rebekah Otto, The Rumpus

  • 9. "Beautiful Ruins" by Jess Walter: "'Beautiful Ruins' leads my list because it's set on the coast of Italy in 1962 and Richard Burton makes an entirely convincing cameo appearance. What more could you want?" -- Maureen Corrigan, NPR's "Fresh Air"

  • 8. "Arcadia" by Lauren Groff: "'Arcadia' captures our painful nostalgia for an idyllic past we never really had." -- Ron Charles, Washington Post

  • 7. "Gone Girl" by Gillian Flynn: "When a young wife disappears on the morning of her fifth wedding anniversary, her husband becomes the automatic suspect in this compulsively readable thriller, which is as rich with sardonic humor and social satire as it is unexpected plot twists." -- Marjorie Kehe, Christian Science Monitor

  • 6. "How Should a Person Be" by Sheila Heti: "There was a reason this book was so talked about, and it’s because Heti has tapped into something great." -- Jason Diamond, Vol. 1 Brooklyn

  • 4. TIE "NW" by Zadie Smith and "Far From the Tree" by Andrew Solomon: "Zadie Smith’s 'NW' is going to enter the canon for the sheer audacity of the book’s project." -- Roxane Gay, New York Times "'Far From the Tree' by Andrew Solomon is, to my mind, a life-changing book, one that's capable of overturning long-standing ideas of identity, family and love." -- Laura Miller, Salon

  • 3. "Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk" by Ben Fountain: "'Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk' says a lot about where we are today," says Marjorie Kehe of the Christian Science Monitor. "Pretty much the whole point of that novel," adds Time's Lev Grossman.

  • 2. "Bring Up the Bodies" by Hilary Mantel: "Even more accomplished than the preceding novel in this sequence, 'Wolf Hall,' Mantel's new installment in the fictionalized life of Thomas Cromwell -- master secretary and chief fixer to Henry VIII -- is a high-wire act, a feat of novelistic derring-do." -- Laura Miller, Salon

  • 1. "Behind the Beautiful Forevers" by Katherine Boo: "Like the most remarkable literary nonfiction, it reads with the bite of a novel and opens up a corner of the world that most of us know absolutely nothing about. It stuck with me all year." -- Eric Banks, president of the National Book Critics Circle

  • Recent Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • Thumbnails
  • Fullscreen
  • 1 of 10

Related Videos

More Related Stories

Comments

 6 Comments

Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( profile | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>

follow salon

Most Read

From Around the Web

Recommendations