Reports of a chemical attack in Syria last month should raise enough alarm bells in Washington, where a re-evaluation of America’s policy (or lack thereof) on the horrific civil war is much needed.
Rebel groups say the regime of President Bashar al Assad attacked them with nonlethal chemical agents late last month and possibly before. If true, such reports put a major dent in a rare “success” for US policy in the world’s deadliest active war.
That success, of course, is Assad’s ongoing voluntary handover of his chem arsenal.
The rebel claims got a major boost this week from a top Israeli defense official, who confirmed at least one March 27 use of a “neutralizing chemical weapon” against rebels.
“We’ll certainly look into it,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, adding she couldn’t confirm the reports. UN officials also said they couldn’t confirm or deny anything.
The unnamed Israeli official said that the type of chemical used in the attacks at Harasta, east of Damascus, wasn’t on Syria’s list declaring various chemical agents it possesses.
The weapon “neutralizes but doesn’t kill,” the official told reporters. Rebels described symptoms including “hallucination, accelerated pulse, trouble breathing and, in some cases, suffocation.”
Since last winter, a UN team has been overseeing the Syrian handover of chemical arms — supposedly, all of them. The UN inspectors report a slow but steady progress: Half of all chemical agents that Damascus declared last year are now gone.
Yes, Syria missed a few deadlines in the process, and Western diplomats say Assad & Co. are employing delay tactics. But Turtle Bay optimists say that all the declared arms may yet be gone from Syria by early summer, as planned.
The scheme was hashed out last year, as Russian President Vladimir Putin helped President Obama out of a pickle.
Back in 2012, Obama had famously declared that any Assad use of chems would be a “game changer” — an implicit but clear threat of serious US response should Syria cross what the president called a “red line.”
But then, after several unconfirmed reports of chemical use, the regime was caught using chems in a well-publicized attack last August — and it turned out that Obama hadn’t taken any steps to ensure that he could make good on his threat.
Steps such as lining up support from allies or even in Congress, whose leaders quickly signaled a lack of support for US military action.
Then Assad’s ally Putin offered Obama a lifeline — a deal in which the Syrian regime would hand over its chems. Our president took the out, and ever since (in lieu of a better Syria plan) the administration has crowed about its success in ridding Syria of chemical arms without firing a shot.
But the recent attacks point to a major weakness in the Syria deal.
True: Syria can say it didn’t declare the “hallucinogenic weapon” because, being non-lethal, it doesn’t fit the classic definition of a chemical weapon. Then again, a few tweaks can quickly transform an agent that’s already a borderline killer into a deadly one.
Anyway, this highlights the fact that the assessment that “50 percent” of all Syrian chemicals have been eliminated relies on the regime’s accounting. What does “half” mean if the only credible report of the “whole” comes from Damascus itself?
Plus, the reported incident indicates that Syria may well be able to develop or buy new chems even under the watchful eyes of those UN inspectors (who, in fact, are totally at Assad’s mercy, since the regime is responsible for their safety).
Chemical warfare, after all, had been central to Syria’s military doctrine for decades, and habits are hard to break.
Either way, the deal leaves Assad in charge. Even if he destroys every bit of toxin that he’s admitted to, he could turn to some he didn’t declare, or quickly develop new chemical arms.
In fact, Secretary of State John Kerry and UN Ambassador Samantha Power are reportedly trying to lean on Obama to flex some US muscle in Syria — or at least up our military assistance to rebels there.
But as our diplomats urge a military approach, our military is citing diplomatic reasons to sit tight: Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel warn of further angering Russia, and that Assad might halt cooperation in removing the declared chems. (They also balk at any US involvement, even by proxy, in another Mideast war.)
So we’re still letting Assad decide what’s best — although that’s meant at least 150,000 deaths and millions of refugees. As long as all we do is pray that his good sense will prevail and that any day now he’ll turn swords into plowshares, these numbers will continue to climb.