If the United States continues to stand on the sidelines of the Syrian Civil War the repercussions for American foreign policy would be foolish and dangerous. Especially now that the administration has evidence supporting the assertion that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons. The inaction would affect not just those in the Middle East, but people worldwide. The action proposed by the administration is not about picking sides in the conflict but instead focuses on sending a clear message to the nations of the world. Congress does not always ratify international treaties, but one that has been ratified is the ban of the use of chemical weapons in warfare, weapons that horrified the world after their widespread use in the World War I.
The use of a limited strike to hinder Assad’s military forces will serve to remind him that the U.S. will not stand idly by as chemical weapons are used. It will also remind other rogue states — such as North Korea — that chemical weapons are taboo beyond question and must not be used. As President Barack Obama declared a year ago, the use of chemical weapons is a red line, and as he recently stated, it is not only his own credibility on the line but also the credibility of the U.S. should we fail to act. The strike is also the best way to convince Assad to return to the negotiation table. Though there is no good option in the current situation, a limited strike is the best method to restart negotiations and bring about a solution to the terrible war currently underway.
As Assad’s forces continue to experience victory against the fragmented rebel forces, it is unlikely that Assad would be willing to engage in any negotiations — especially if the international community continues to give its tacit support for his war by standing by and doing nothing. The French foreign minister has expressed support for a strike against Syria, stating, “If there is no punishment for Mr. Assad, there will be no negotiation.” For the past two and a half years, Assad has enjoyed impunity from international reaction as his Russian allies block action from the U.N. security council, and his forces have continued to make gains against rebels. This strike is the best option to convince him to return to the negotiation table and actually make headway in a diplomatic solution.
The use of a limited strike not only lowers the chances of American casualties but also restricts the possibility of retaliation by any other nations, such as Iran. Though Iran and Syria are close allies, the government in Tehran is ultimately realistic, and it is unlikely that they would choose to escalate the situation into full-blown war with the U.S. The Iranian government has warned the U.S. against intervening in Syria on behalf of the rebels, but the president has also stated concern about the use of chemical weapons and expressed hope that there will be no more use of them. While the Iranian government continues to stand strongly by the Assad regime, a limited strike is unlikely to shift the balance of power toward the rebels, which might cause a more direct response from Iran. Already expending large amounts of support for the Assad regime — both directly and through the proxy of Hezbollah — the Iranian government is unlikely to be able to afford more action. Also, Iran’s newly elected president Hassan Rouhani continues to make small overtures of peace and chances of reconciliation to the U.S. even as the possibility of a strike rises.
The fear that a strike by the U.S. could tip the world into war is largely exaggerated, and this is not an action that is taken lightly by those that support it, such as Obama. Though Russia has increased the presence of their ships in the area, the Kremlin Chief of Staff declared it was primarily to ensure the success of an evacuation of Russian citizens from Syria, rather than an increase of force for retaliation should the U.S. choose to strike.