ANNOUNCEMENT : Prelims 2019 Select Focus Group (SFG) Commencement Date, Entrance Test and Other Details

Syrian Uprising

edited September 2013 in Current Affairs
Why Mr.Obama(not America because he may not get the support from Congress) has to interfere in Syrian war resolution if the chemical weapon,Sarin Nerve(Which Mr.Obama reiterates is the main reason to interfere) was used?
$A Reluctant Fundamentalist$


  • In my opinion, US line of argument would revolve around its perceived de facto status as the protector of democratic values and rights of people across the globe. As the Syrian crisis has been dragging on for over two years now, the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government has tested the resolve of the United States and has necessitated some form of military intervention in the conflict. Further, the US would argue that so far they have not been directly involved in the civil war as it is an internal affair of the country but staying silent after the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government against its own people would send the wrong message to the people across the world.

    However, in reality the actual reasons for the intervention could be completely different. Looking at the over zealous US Foreign Secretary Kerry, who is absolutely convinced that Sarin was used by the Syrian Government even before the UN inspectors have submitted their report, shows that the US is more than prepared to attack Syria without UN's consent. Moreover, US is already preparing ground to counter any resistance that Russia and China might throw up at the UN.

    If we dig down a little deeper, history is replete with examples where the US has remained silent in several similar situations in the past. A stark example is inaction against Khmer Rouge to counter Vietnam's growth in South-east Asia. Hence, there is definitely some political interest that the US has in being directly involved in the conflict. This brings out the Shia-Sunni politics in the picture. Syria is a Sunni dominated country but has a Shia-led Government. Iran being the only major Shia country in the world has explicitly supported the Syrian Government. US would want to send a message to Iran and also to Russia which supports both the countries. Moreover, this is also responsible for the Sunni majority Muslim countries such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia to support US intervention.

    In a grander scheme of things, the role of Israel can also not be ruled out. Israel can take this opportunity to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon as the latter's involvement is bound to take place as they are Shia-led militants who have continued to support Syrian Government. Also, as the US army is scheduled to leave Afghanistan in 2014, the US arms lobby would be trying hard to involve US in a new conflict.

    However, the position of Obama in the whole situation is hanging precariously. He will need to convince his people that at a time when the US economy is showing signs of revival why would it need to be involved in a situation which has the potential to hurt its economy. Also, supporting the Sunni majority rebels who are allegedly being supported by Al-Qaeda could pose problems for the US in future.
  • @thegametheorist : Thanks for the post. I got the answer which I was searching for. I heard from a few that the reason behind the interference is to gain the power over Oil exporting countries(But Syria is not a member of OPEC). I haven't got good judgement but the way you posted was very structured and well organized. I am not good at drafting skills so may I know the way to write an article like this, as I figured out this is important for Mains descriptive papers.
    $A Reluctant Fundamentalist$
  • edited September 2013
    @thegametheorist Amazing explanation!

    @rs10 - Oil Angle: I will try to explain it in brief:

    There are 2 speculations or 'conspiracy theories' -

    1. Shale Boom in US economy - US has transformed from an oil import nation to oil export nation. Instability in West Asia & Middle East will increase the oil prices - Good for US oil exports which will help in faster recovery of US economy.

    2. Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar to run a pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets. This is where Russia comes into picture - Why Syria is important to Russia? Because Russia has a huge european oil market. Once Syria falls - This market will be taken over by other gulf countries such as Qatar, Saudi etc. (And this is one of the reason why Qatar and Saudi are funding the rebels too.)

    To add salt to the wound - Syria signed an MoU for Iran - Iraq - Syria pipeline which seeks to supply oil to european countries via mediterranean sea. Uncle Sam unhappy - After all, Iran is under sanction!

    It is not that US has become active just now - It has been planning this right from the beginning.

    Please note: These are just speculations. May not be true but definitely cannot be ignored.
  • @thegametheorist , felt like reading Charlemagne section of The Economist .. =D>
    2017--> 8th attempt
  • one more thing ... Syria is only country having a considerable stockpile of Chemical bombs and
    Air force worth mentioning in Arab world ( backing Palestine) after Iran which could cause some threat to Israel

    add to it Syria's previous hostility to France ( French ambassador to lebanon was allegedly killed by Syrian backed terrorist ) .. that's why Mr Hollande is so jubilant for supporting US ( only to be embarrassed by US later

    Also it seems even US is reluctant this time after British backed out. After rabble rousing speech of Kerry as if emperor Obama was about to attack .... he was taken aback by his own President's call for Congress Vote

    Really Red Line has come back to haunt obama !!
    The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why –Mark Twain
  • Also, China, India and Russia are wary of supporting any external military interventionism-- outside UNSC charter--probably because they believe in the sacrosanctness of national territories, which perhaps serves as mere ideology but also would deter or attempt to deter any future US-led attack on their own territory. For example- Disputed and disturbed regions like Kashmir, Xinjiang can be attacked by US on same ground- to protect human rights et all.
    P.S.- It's like they would kill Syrians for killing Syrians to prevent them from killing Syrians. Now, that can be China, Russia, or India someday.
  • Image and video hosting by TinyPic
    Be a loner. That gives you time to wonder, to search for the truth. Have holy curiosity. Make your life worth living. - Albert Einstein
  • Syrian government has granted permission to UN investigation team in order for them to probe chemical weapon attack as they are confident in their belief that sarin was used by western backed rebel forces.
    Many toxicology experts even doubt that sarin was used as pictures aired show doctors treating the victims without basic protective clothing (Any contact with sarin is supposed to be lethal).

    Now if UN reports, after investigation suggest that chemical attack was carried out by rebel forces (a subsidiary of al qaeda) but not the syrian government, what stance would US take as its for sure that even after that if US launches a military attack, Iran will definitely not be a bystander backed by Russia (china might join) ?
    Do it.
  • edited September 2013
    First of all, the use of chemical weapons as a "red line" is rather arbitrary and unilateral. In fact, over a hundred thousand people have been killed in Syria in the past two years using conventional weapons whereas 400-1000 people are estimated to have died in the recent chemical weapons attack.

    USA claims that Syria has violated the 1925 Geneva Convention protocol (to which Syria is a signatory), which prohibits use of chemical weapons. As a result, they want to carry out a surgical/punitive strike against Syria so that countries would think twice before violating international non-proliferation treaties in the future (sending a not-so-subtle hint to Iran). But since when is United States the enforcer of multilateral protocols? It has a terrible record with this particular treaty, having assisted Iraq in the past to use chemical weapons against its own people. See

    As Ban ki-Moon and Putin have pointed out, a unilateral strike will be illegal per international law, unless it has the approval of the UNSC. If it were some other state like North Korea showing such aggression, the UNSC would already be considering sanctions and preventive strikes.
    Blog: DailyGyan | AIR 380s in CSE 2013 | Thank you ForumIAS!
  • A superpower has to assert its manhood periodically to remain relevant. With all the recent scandals and leaks coming out of America and the talk about China's imminent rise to an equal status, they had begun to appear weak and a lot of countries were openly denouncing the USA, which they would never have done 10 years ago. This might just be a way for them to show the world that they are still the boss and have all the biggest weapons at their disposal.
Sign In or Join to comment.


We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.

Just dont spread the word ;)

Sign in or join with Facebook or Google

Subscribe to ForumIAS Blog