If Syria Uses Chemical Weapons, The World Must Intervene And America Must Lead

Conservatives should back an intervention in Syria as well. The United States had limited international interests at stake in a rapidly collapsing Libya in 2011, but Washington has many interests at stake in Syria. Replacing the Assad regime in Damascus has been an American foreign policy priority for decades. Bashar al Assad’s regime represents the last bastion of Ba’athism in the Middle East. Damascus has been a provocative exporter of terrorism across the region and harbors Iranian-backed terrorist elements, which have contributed to the destabilizing of the region (and a handful of wars with Israel). The installation of a responsible and pro-Western regime in the wake of the decapitation of the present government in Syria could result in the easing of rapidly escalating tensions in this region.

Realists, often suspicious of intervention abroad, can take heart in many stabilizing effects that an invasion of Syria could have beyond just the reinforcement of the international norms. Recent history has shown clearly that Washington cannot rely on chance if they want to see responsible Western governments to come to power in the Middle East. While it is unlikely that the Assad regime can survive the civil war, there is no guarantee that its successor government will be pro-Western unless the United States and its NATO allies ingratiate themselves with Assad’s likely successors – the sooner, the better. Providing secular elements of the rebellion with logistical as well as military assistance will help to prevent the rise of an Islamist government following the collapse of the Assad regime.

A second benefit to intervention in Syria which should make America’s realists smile is the toppling of yet another Russian client state in the Middle East. For all the grief that former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney took for his statement that Russia is America’s “number one geopolitical foe,” he was precisely correct.

No other great power has so eagerly demonstrated its willingness to violate codified or implicit international norms with the specific goal of frustrating Western interests in the past two decades. Russia has recently re-embarked on an unmistakable effort to court or compel nations into its relatively weak sphere of influence – a project made possible by the relatively recent infusion of petrodollars into the Russian economy. Moscow has, since the ascension of Vladimir Putin to the nation’s presidency, defined its interests as being in direct conflict with those of the West.

The Kremlin has already lost two of its client states to the U.S. in the past decade; Iraq and Libya. Moscow has actively armed Syria’s government and is destabilizing the region while doing so (Turkey intercepted a Russian arms shipment, initiating a minor diplomatic incident in October). In the event Syria uses chemical weapons, Moscow will be compelled to drop its support for one of its last client regimes and will be see its influence significantly weakened in the process.

All of the above reasons to support an intervention in Syria are relevant today, even without Syria’s suicidal decision to mount a WMD attack on its own citizens. Today, however, the political capital and will required to mount that significant a military action in that key Middle Eastern nation does not exist. If Assad is foolish enough to use those WMD, he will provide the West an opportunity to put an end to some of the chaos wrought by the Arab Spring by imposing order on Syria. Another similar opportunity to control events in the region, rather than be subject to them, is unlikely to arise in the near future.

Finally, given the looming threat that Iranian nuclearization poses and the various imperfect resolutions to such a crisis NATO and its allies are pondering, the West could provide Tehran’s moderate opposition forces political ammunition to stall the nation’s push to develop a nuclear weapon. The cautionary example of their careless ally in Syria may even sway some of the hardliners in Iran that avoiding all-out conflict with the West is desirable.

In the absence of any intervention, a post-civil war Syria is unlikely to emerge as a Western satellite. Syria’s use of WMD would force the world’s hand, and the United States is the only nation that can enforce global norms prohibiting such actions. Such an event would be a critical test for Washington and the world, and it must be passed. If successful, the chance of a brighter future in the Middle East – while not guaranteed – is increased dramatically.

If, however, Syria commits to the unthinkable course of using chemical weapons on its rebellious citizens and their actions are met with silence, the consequences for the world will by dire and the complete abdication of the United States’ role as lone global hegemon will be complete.

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@Noah_C_Rothman) on Twitter

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

New: The Mediaite One-Sheet Newsletter
Your daily summary and analysis of what the many, many media newsletters are saying and reporting. Subscribe now!