Military Intervention or Strengthening of Assad Opposition
During the past few days, the issue of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflicts has started a new phase in this country’s two-year crisis. The US had previously warned the government of Syria against the usage of chemical weapons. But at the present time, considering the intelligence that they have gathered, there is the chance that chemical weapons were used in this country. In recent months, the US had declared the usage of chemical weapons as the red line, and if this assumption is correct that chemical weapons were used in Syria, then that would mean that they have crossed the red line which would lead to severe reactions by the West. When it was claimed that chemical weapons were used in the conflicts, the western countries dealt with this issue very cautiously and they ordered their intelligence services to pursue this matter. Their investigating teams then entered the scene and the results of their investigation were announced a few days ago. Later, the western countries took cautious positions until Barack Obama took a strong position. His speech has worried everyone especially due to the fact it was made after his meeting with the King of Jordan who had visited the US to talk about the issue of Syria.
The issue of using chemical weapons creates different conditions; because this approach reminds one of the US claim when it intended to attack Iraq with its allies, when they proposed the issue of Iraq’s having atomic facilities and atomic weapons which was one of the excuses that was used to attack Iraq. Now that Syria is claimed to have crossed the red line, one must wait and see what responses Obama would have for these two incidents. The answer to this question is very difficult, for the conditions on the ground in Syria have not changed:
1. These conditions mean that, on the ground, the government and the opposition still feel powerful and neither of them has the capacity to gain victory over the other.
2. On the other hand, there is the issue of the West’s concerns about the matter that if conditions in Syria get worse, what guarantees are there that the radical groups will not gain more opportunities.
3. And the third issue is that the world community, meaning the Security Council, will not be able to reach a unanimous result with regard to Syria’s usage of chemical weapons. As we had witnessed, the position taken by the Russians shows that they are concerned about this news and the threatening positions taken by the western countries and the US create the concern that the conditions are changing and that this will lead to the intervention of foreign forces.
If we rely on the claims of the western countries stating that the government of Syria has used these weapons, or even if we rely on the position that al-Qaeda and the opposition to Bashar Assad’s government have used these weapons, both approaches will cause the West to be directed towards more serious efforts to solve the crisis in Syria. In the end, if any of these two scenarios is to be accepted, then the situation would be very dangerous and intervention would be needed.
It seems that today we are faced with a very complicated situation in Syria. It must be reiterated that the crisis in Syria has entered a new stage in the type of interaction with the West or the collective group of Europe, US, and the Arabs, who agree on the need for Bashar Assad’s removal. Their difference is only over the method to be used to pursue the necessity of the downfall of the present government. Therefore, the scene has changed to the disadvantage of Assad’s government and to the advantage of the opposition and has led to increased support for them. But due to the complexities of the Syrian issue and the geographical conditions of this country, one must not expect very rapid changes in the behavior of the West with regard to Syria. It must also be stressed that the more these incidents become deeper and more expanded, its reflection in other countries, particularly Syria’s neighbors including Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey, will increase.
Thus, the West is confronted with problems with regard to different scenarios in Syria. If the western countries directly intervene in Syria, they will be faced with problems. On the other hand, if they intend to further help the opposition, there is no guarantee that these aids will not reach the radical forces. Hence, there is a contradiction in the Syrian issue. It is natural that the Americans and the westerners look to solve this contradiction, but the aids given to the opposition will increase anyway. But the question is will there be decisive aids to change the circumstances to the advantage of the opposition or are the western countries concerned about being involved in a long and direct war?
There are two hypotheses, on one hand whether the Americans know that the government of Syria has used chemical weapons, and on the other whether they are not certain about this issue. If they are certain that the opposition has used these weapons and they are instead accusing the government of Syria, then it would mean that they are looking for an opportunity to take serious measures, thus there are two possibilities:
A. Military intervention, which will begin by creating a no-fly zone.
B. Helping the opposition of the Syrian government to strengthen their status.
If the only issue is to help the opposition, then there is still the US and Israeli problem that if these chemical weapons were used in Aleppo, then other countries might also get involved. Also, it is not clear whether a military intervention can solve this matter and control the usage of chemical weapons. Thus, it seems that despite Obama’s position with regard to this issue, no clear image can be drawn about the future and the existing complexities cannot easily be solved.