Syrian Intervention and the Chemical Weapon Bogey

Syria using chemical weapons and crossing of a “red line” painted by Obama is now being used to justify possible military intervention, or if not, at least direct weapons supplies to the Syrian rebels.

The words the US is using for Assad regime's use of chemical weapons – and words are particularly important here – are “varying degrees of confidence” and “increasing evidence”. Remember, the same “omnipotent” US intelligence agencies had found “incontrovertible evidence” of Iraqi WMD's? So how does “varying degrees of confidence” measure against Niger yellow cakes, or aluminium tubes for supposedly uranium centrifuges? Or against Powell's “demonstration” in the UN before the Iraq invasion of Iraq's WMD's?

The red line of chemical weapon being painted by any US administration itself is ironic. From 1983 to 1988, if not 1990, the US administration supplied Iraq with pathogens capable of being converted into biological weapons. Rumsfeld, the hawk on Iraq invasion, was the special emissary of Ronald Regan to Saddam Hussein and was offering Saddam all kinds of help against Iran, knowing full well that Saddam was already using chemical weapons. The US was fully complicit in Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran and against Kurds – in their use in the battlefield against Iran, and covering up for the Halbja civilian massacre by blaming Iran. Joost R. Hiltermann wrote in International Herald Tribune that Americans did not seem to mind poison gas then! The UK, another nation now screaming about chemical weapons being used by Syria, secretly helped Iraq build a chemical plant which they knew was being planned for chemical warfare. So much so for red lines on chemical weapons and it being a “game changer”.

Even if we do take the US and the western powers seriously on its abhorrence for chemical weapons, let us parse the words carefully. Initially, an Israeli “expert”, Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, the head of research and analysis in Israeli military intelligence, claimed that Assad has used chemical weapons multiple times. The evidence – “documentation” by France and the UK, and videos uploaded by Syrian “resistance” of "Shrunken pupils, foaming at the mouth and other signs indicate, in our view, that lethal chemical weapons were used." This appears to be a different incident from the one near Aleppo in March, which the Syrian government requested the UN to investigate. This seems to refer to an attack in Aleppo on 13th April this year. Global Post reports, “Looking at video and photos obtained by GlobalPost at the scene, experts say the spent canister found in Younes’ house and the symptoms displayed by the victims are inconsistent with a chemical weapon such as sarin gas, which is known to be in Syria’s arsenal. Sarin is typically delivered using artillery shells or spray tanks, not in the grenade-like device found in this Aleppo attack and in other similar attacks reported in recent days.” It is more likely to be tear gas or some other chemicals found in munitions, but not a chemical weapons as defined by the 1993 Chemical Waepons Convention.

The videos are quite farcical: the thick foam is hardly likely to be the effect of a chemical weapon, and more likely to be shaving cream. Jean-Pascal Zanders, another expert at the EU Institute for Strategic Studies said: "It's not possible that what is being shown to the public is a chemical weapons attack. The video from Aleppo showing foaming at the mouth does not look like a nerve agent. I'm wholly unconvinced." Many others have also dismissed the claims – from videos – of it being sarin as the Israeli expert claims.

The soil and other samples are even more problematic. There is no chain of custody – meaning that we do not know who took the samples and from where – before it was analysed by the US, UK and French intelligence agencies. Worse, instead of a sarin residue as is being claimed, it could also be a by-product of fertiliser use!

Guardian, UK has examined the UK claims of sarin being used. One of the samples seems to have been collected from an incident in December in Homs. Again, eye-witness account discounts it being sarin; white smoke was seen pouring out from the shells/cannisters and smelt of hydrochloric acid while sarin is a odourless and colourless liquid. Also the scale of casualties would have been far higher that what was observed.

So here is the evidence. Some videos on YouTube and some soil/human samples from who knows where, being supplied by Syrian rebels to the US and its allies, who then find chemicals that may be from fertilisers! And on this basis, President Obama, Chuck Hagel, the US Defence Secretary and and the UK PM, David Cameron hold that while they cannot confirm the origin of these weapons, they believe that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would “very likely have originated with the Assad regime”. Faith as the basis of the belief? Clairvoyance?

Incidentally, reports indicate that varying degree of confidence could actually means “low or moderate” confidence, as sources within the defence establishment have indicated. In English parlance, this would also pass as varying degree of confidence; so the the US is not really lying, just spinning it a bit! So also growing evidence, the other phrase British and US sources are using, growing from zero to 5% of probability could count as growing evidence .

Interestingly, initially, the US had refused to go along with Israel, France and UK's claims of use of chemical weapons. At some point, they seemed to have changed their mind and released the letter of the White House to Sen. McCain and Sen. Carl Levin., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, “Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin.” This is the letter that is now being used as “proof” of Syria's use of chemical weapons.

The only real attack involving chemical agents is the chlorine attack near Aleppo, in the village of Khan al-Assal, south-west of Aleppo on a barrier held by government forces. Tellingly, a chlorine plant was captured by the rebel forces only a few days before the attack. According to the Syrian authorities, about 25 people died and dozens were injured. According to a Reuters reporter, “victims he had visited in Aleppo hospitals were suffering breathing problems and that people had said they could smell chlorine after the attack”. Even the Telegraph, UK admitted that the attack was most likely from Syrian rebels.

The Syrian government asked for an UN investigation into this attack. Ban Ki Moon, who has operated more as a US proxy then the Secretary General of the UN, put down various conditions. First, he ruled out any Russian or Chinese experts, as they were “partisan”, while including NATO experts. Second, he wanted that the UN team should have access to any part of Syria that it would wish to visit. Syria, remembering the open-ended UN inspections in Iraq, which helped the US to map out Iraq's military targets before the invasion, has refused such inspections.

Why is the US and its allies suddenly ratcheting up the chemical weapons bogey, when the evidence is so flimsy? One reason is that in the recent days, Syrian forces have made significant gains in its two-year war with the rebels. The US now realises that it needs to take a more active role if the rebels are to sustain their resistance. It is this success of the government forces that is driving the need for a more active US intervention. Therefore the need to find a “game changer” now and find it quickly. Chemical weapons, is a handy tool, carrying as it does the overtones of mass destruction that was drilled into people before the Iraq invasion. Then also, the WMD's were chemical and biological weapons. The Pavlovian response of the mainstream western media and its news agencies – the main source of news world over – has ensured that “chemical weapons”, “red lines” and “game changer” are now the currency of global reporting on Syria.

Already, reports are coming in from “leaks” that the US is going to start direct supply of weapons to rebels. Till now, it was through grey channels – CIA using Benghazi, Turkey, Jordan, Bulgaria and Croatia. Libya was a major conduit – it is awash with arms and CIA had built strong links with the Islamist radicals, who are also the backbone of the Syrian rebels. After the killing of the American Ambassador, who was the linchpin of the CIA operations, CIA had to shift some its operations.

One look at the map will show where Syria's rebels are receiving their arms from – Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon; it is not surprising that they are concentrated near these borders. Much of the militancy is being sustained by forces within Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan – from cross border flow of arms to shelter and medical help.

Lebanon is getting drawn into the Syrian conflict. Sunni Salafist forces, Jabhat al-Nusra, the extension of Al Qaeda in Iraq being the key one, is increasingly gaining ground among the rebels and is also targeting the Shias. This, in the border areas of Lebanon, is forcing Hezbollah to intervene to protect the Shia community on both sides of the border. The Hariri forces in Lebanon, the key opposnent of Hezbollah, in any case has acted as an arm of the US and has been a conduit for providing arms, money and shelter to the Syrian rebels.

While it is not surprising that the US sees Syria as a part of its larger battle to contain Iran in West Asia, it is willing to forget the threat that Isamists pose to the larger social fabric of the region. It is this same blindness that makes it work with Islamist forces in Caucasus, in the belief that such forces will only target Russia, and therefore weaken its main opponent in this region. There is growing evidence that Caucasus, Syria, Chechen militancy are not separate strands but are coming together. Syria today draws in Jihadists from Tunisia to Chechenya, just as Afghanistan did earlier.

It is this same blindness that made FBI and CIA disregard the Tsarnaevs, the Boston bombers; they were Chechens who were fighting Russians and therefore not dangerous to the US. A blind eye could therefore be turned to their activities.

Why does the US follow such a policy, which on the face of it is dangerous for itself? For this one has to only look at the numbers. For Syria, with more than 70,000 dead and 10 million displaced, it is the end of the Syrian state. Irrespective of what happens – whether the rebels succeed or not – Syria is now no longer a serious player in West Asia. In the geopolitical game, Iranians have lost a key ally.Knocking out Iraq, knock out Syria, leaving Iran as the only major opponent to the US-Israel axis in the region. For this, a Boston bombing is small price to pay.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author's personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Newsclick