Archive for August 25, 2013

Syrian rebels’ senior official says Israel must urge intervention

August 25, 2013

Syrian rebels’ senior official says Israel must urge intervention – Israel News, Ynetnews.

pposition source says Israel needs to prove its good intentions, persuade world to intervene in Syrian war

Roi Kais

Published: 08.25.13, 23:36 / Israel News

“If Israel wants to prove it has good intentions toward the Syrian people it must urge the international community to intervene in Syria,” a senior official in the Syrian opposition told Ynet Sunday.

 

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Israel must urge intervention in order to “save Syria and the Syrian people and prevent Syria’s fall.”

 

Related stories:

 

He blamed Israel for giving the Syrian regime “diplomatic cover,” and said it must be removed if Israel “wants to show the Syrian people it is not assisting the Syrian regime and the Syrian terror.”

 

He estimated that eventually the world would intervene. “I have reason to believe that preparations for war have begun and that this intervention is extremely close,” he said, but did not specify what his estimates were based on.

צילום: וואלה

Netanyahu discusses Syria in press conference with French FM Fabius

 

 

He added that “when the Syrian people started their revolution, they went out to the streets to take down the government and not the Syrian country. We must save the Syrian country and prevent the anarchy that will reign after Assad’s regime falls.”

 

Addressing the West’s demand that conclusive evidence regarding the use of chemical weapons be presented, the source stressed, “The US, UK, France and Turkey have enough evidence that chemical weapons were used in Syria. What’s missing is not proof, it’s a willingness for military intervention.”

 

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Free Syrian Army said in an interview that the rebels have information by which several Western countries made a decision to launch a military attack against the Syrian regime in response for the use of chemical weapons.

 

According to the spokesperson, “The world cannot bear the death of 1,500 people without acting.”

 

Regarding the issue of intervention, President Barack Obama discussed a possible coordinated international response to the reported use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria with French President Francois Hollande, the White House said on Sunday.

 

“President Obama and President Hollande discussed possible responses by the international community and agreed to continue to consult closely,” the White House said in a statement.

 

The two leaders expressed grave concern about the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces against civilians near Damascus on Wednesday, the White House said, without giving any further details of the discussion.

Postal Company: Demand for ABC kits rises

August 25, 2013

Postal Company: Demand for ABC kits rises – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Concerned citizens monitoring events in Syria arrive at post offices to pick up ABC kits for selves, families; Netanyahu says Syrian situation must end, weapons of mass destruction must not fall into wrong hands; says Israel will protect its citizens, State, against those who would harm them

Itay Blumenthal

Published: 08.25.13, 17:38 / Israel News

The number of seeking ABC kits has risen Sunday, exceeding the average number by four, the Israel Postal Service reported.

Concerned citizens arrived at a Tel Aviv post office to claim their kits, having monitored events in Syria. Tania, living in Hatikva neighborhood, said she had come to pick up the gas masks so she would feel calmer in the face of the threat.

“I know nothing will happen, but I want to know that my children are safe,” she said.

“We keep postponing the issue of the masks,” said David Vaknin, who came to pick up masks for his family members. “Today I decided I have to get here and I’m glad that I’ve met the commitment I made to myself.”

Laurie arrived to take a mask for her son who was scheduled to return to Israel in a few days. “What’s happening in Syria is very disconcerting,” she said. “I think the United States should have made a move a long time ago. Now I understand that if there’s a war we’ll be attacked, so my family and I are preparing ourselves.

Addressing events in Syria, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday: “What is happening in Syria is a terrible tragedy and an obscene crime. Our hearts go out to the women, children, babies and civilians who were so brutally hurt by the use of weapons of mass destruction.”

The prime minister added that Israel has drawn three conclusions from the chemical weapons assault near Damascus. “First is that this situation cannot go on. Second, that the world’s most dangerous regimes must not posses the most dangerous weapons in the world.

“Third, we of course expect this to stop, but we always bear in mind the ancient principle of our sages who said, ‘If we are not for ourselves, who will be for us?’ That is, we always have our ear to the ground. Our finger is a responsible one and if it is required it can be on the trigger. We will always make sure to protect our citizens and the State against those who attempt to harm us or have harmed us – that is our guiding principle.”

Syrian opposition accounts claim that between 500 to well over 1,000 civilians were killed last week by gas in munitions fired by pro-government forces, and video footage of victims’ bodies, have stoked demands abroad for a robust, US-led response after 2.5 years of international inaction on Syria’s conflict.

Syria: Cameron and Obama move west closer to intervention

August 25, 2013

Syria: Cameron and Obama move west closer to intervention | World news | The Observer.

British prime minister and US president agree that alleged chemical attack ‘requires a response’

Syrian army soldier

A Syrian army soldier in the Jobar neighbourhood of Damascus on Saturday. Cameron and Obama have moved the west closer to military intervention. Photograph: AP

David Cameron and Barack Obama moved the west closer to military intervention in Syria on Saturday as they agreed that last week’s alleged chemical weapon attacks by the Assad regime had taken the crisis into a new phase that merited a “serious response”.

In a phone call that lasted 40 minutes, the two leaders are understood to have concluded that the regime of Bashar al-Assad was almost certainly responsible for the assault that is believed to have killed as many as 1,400 people in Damascus in the middle of last week. Cameron was speaking from his holiday in Cornwall.

The prime minister and US president said time was running out for Assad to allow UN weapons inspectors into the areas where the attack took place. Government sources said the two leaders agreed that all options should be kept open, both to end the suffering of the Syrian people and to make clear that the west could not stand by as chemical weapons were used on innocent civilians.

A spokesman for No 10 said: “The prime minister and President Obama are both gravely concerned by the attack that took place in Damascus on Wednesday and the increasing signs that this was a significant chemical weapons attack carried out by the Syrian regime against its own people. The UN security council has called for immediate access for UN investigators on the ground in Damascus. The fact that President Assad has failed to co-operate with the UN suggests that the regime has something to hide.

“They reiterated that significant use of chemical weapons would merit a serious response from the international community and both have tasked officials to examine all the options. They agreed that it is vital that the world upholds the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons and deters further outrages. They agreed to keep in close contact on the issue.”

The dramatic upping of the stakes came after the international medical charity Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) reported that three hospitals in Damascus had received approximately 3,600 patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms in less than three hours on the morning of Wednesday, 21 August. Of those patients, 355 are reported to have died.

Dr Bart Janssens, MSF’s director of operations, said: “Medical staff working in these facilities provided detailed information to MSF doctors regarding large numbers of patients arriving with symptoms including convulsions, excess saliva, pinpoint pupils, blurred vision and respiratory distress.”

He said the reported symptoms strongly indicated “mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent. This would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, which absolutely prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons.”

France’s foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, said on Saturday that “all the information at our disposal converges to indicate that there was a chemical massacre near Damascus and that the [regime of Bashar al-Assad] is responsible”.

The foreign secretary, William Hague, said last week that “this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime” and “not something that a humane or civilised world can ignore”.

Obama has been reluctant to commit American forces to what has become a bitter and protracted civil war. However, he said last year that use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” triggering a more robust US response. It was confirmed yesterday that the US navy is deploying an extra missile warship to the eastern Mediterranean ahead of a summit to debate the massacre.

The summit will be held in Jordan’s capital, Amman, in the first half of the week as a consensus hardens that the nerve agent sarin was used in the attack in rebel-held east Damascus early on Thursday. Biological samples taken from victims of the attack have been passed to western officials in Jordan after having been smuggled out of Syria over the past 72 hours. Questionnaires have been distributed to officials in the three most affected communities, asking for scientific and environmental details, as well as for organ tissue and clothing worn by victims.

Officials, who have not identified themselves but claim to be part of an international response, have also made phone contact with rebel officials, seeking photographs of the rockets that are thought to have carried the gas.

France, Britain and Turkey have blamed the Syrian regime for the attack, which came as its military forces were advancing into the area.

Syria has continued to deny responsibility as the UN’s disarmament chief, Angela Kane, arrived in Damascus to try to negotiate access to the site of the attack for an inspection team that was sent to investigate three earlier alleged attacks. The team has been in the capital for the past six days and has been pressing for permission to make the journey – only a short distance from its hotel.

Rebel groups in the area say that they will guarantee safe passage. However, the Syrian government has not agreed and the UN fears that the journey is unsafe without a negotiated agreement.

The US secretary of state, John Kerry, spoke to Syria’s foreign minister, Walid al-Moualem, on Thursday, the State Department revealed on Saturday. Kerry told him the Damascus government should have let UN inspectors have access to the site of the alleged gas attack, the department said.

Kerry called “to make clear that if, as they claimed, the Syrian regime has nothing to hide, it should have allowed immediate and unimpeded access to the site rather than continuing to attack the affected area to block access and destroy evidence,” a State Department official said.

The chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, General Martin Dempsey, will travel to Jordan along with the head of the US central command, General Lloyd Austin, and chiefs of staff from Turkey, Britain, France, Qatar, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Italy and Canada.

The addition of a US destroyer takes to four the US Mediterranean flotilla, one more than normal. US defence secretary Chuck Hagel said no decision has been made to use the warships in operations against Syria. Speaking on Friday, officials in Washington said no response to Syria would involve sending troops into the country.

Two of Syria’s three main allies, Russia and Iran, have supported calls for a transparent and credible inquiry into the attack. Both accuse rebel groups of having carried out the atrocity. Syrian state television said on Saturday that its forces had found tunnels in rebel areas in which chemicals were stored.

The Lebanese militia, Hezbollah, has remained silent since Thursday. Hezbollah leaders roundly condemned car-bombings of two mosques in Lebanon’s second city, Tripoli, one day later, which killed 42 and wounded hundreds. The mosques had been focal points of anti-Assad rhetoric in the largely Sunni north.

Lebanon, an unstable multi-confessional state, has been perennially on edge since the start of the Syrian uprising with occasional flare-ups in violence that threaten to drag it into the chaos consuming its powerful neighbour. The remains of 20 such rockets have been found in the affected areas, activists and local residents say. Many remain mostly intact, suggesting that they did not detonate on impact and potentially dispersed gas before hitting the ground.

After reported gas attack, Israeli leaders call for action on Syria

August 25, 2013

After reported gas attack, Israeli leaders call for action on Syria | The Times of Israel.

Situation can’t continue, PM says, hinting that Israel could make move, while president calls for international effort to remove chemical weapons

August 25, 2013, 12:01 pm
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon observe a drill of the Golani Brigade in the Golan Heights, Wednesday, June 26, 2013 (photo credit: Kobi Gideon/GPO/Flash90)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon observe a drill of the Golani Brigade in the Golan Heights, Wednesday, June 26, 2013 (photo credit: Kobi Gideon/GPO/Flash90)

The situation in Syria can’t be allowed to continue, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday, while President Shimon Peres said the price of letting Damascus hold onto chemical weapons was greater than that of an operation to remove them and other top ministers urged action as well.

The statements came as Washington and other Western countries are weighing how to respond to reports that the regime in Damascus fired chemical warheads last week, killing hundreds.

Netanyahu added that Israel “will always know how to protect our citizens” should Syrian weapons be turned on the Jewish state.

“Our hand is always on the pulse,” said. “Our finger is a responsible one and if needed, is on the trigger. We will always know how to protect our citizens and our country against those who come to injure us or try to attack us.”

Speaking ahead of the weekly cabinet meeting, Netanyahu said that reports of the mass chemical weapons attack outside Damascus point to “a terrible tragedy and a terrible crime. Our hearts go out to the women, children, babies and civilians injured so cruelly by the use of weapons of mass destruction.”

Israel, like the rest of the world, has refrained from responding to the Syrian civil war in any large-scale way, taking in only a small number of injured Syrians and reportedly carrying out covert air strikes at regime weapons sites. Yet officials have said action must be taken, with most expecting Washington to respond to the attack.

On Sunday Peres called for a concentrated international effort to “take out” Syrian’s chemical weapons.

The “moral call is superior to any strategic considerations,” the president said, so therefore “the time has come for a joint effort to remove all the chemical weapons from Syria. They cannot remain there either in the hands of Assad or of others.”

The prime minister, counting off Israel’s takeaways from the attack, hinted that what happened in Syria could be signal to Israel for how to deal with other conflicts.

“One, the situation can’t continue. Two, the most dangerous regimes in the world can’t possess the most dangerous weapons in the world. Three, of course we expect the situation to stop, but we remember the ancient principle of the sages, ‘If we are not for ourselves, who is for us?’”

Netanyahu will meet later in the day with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, with Syria expected to be on the agenda for discussion.

Peres, after meeting with Fabius in Jerusalem, called Syrian President Bashar Assad “a ruler who kills his people with the most terrible means and without any consideration… we cannot remain indifferent.”

Although removing chemical weapons would be “very complicated” and “very expensive,” Peres said, “it is more dangerous and more expensive to leave [them] there. It must be done.”

Earlier in the day, Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz told Army Radio the attack requires a response. He said the chances that Syria would attack Israel as a result of US action were slim but that the army should be prepared for such an eventuality.

Justice Minister Tzipi Livni told Israel Radio that a US response to the alleged poison gas attack would help discourage future chemical weapons use, but also have security implications for Israel.

Neither Netanyahu nor the ministers specified what type of response they were urging.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

Western-Mid East military action prepared for Syria. Israel, Jordan, Turkey face up to Syrian counter-attack. Russia on war alert

August 25, 2013

Western-Mid East military action prepared for Syria. Israel, Jordan, Turkey face up to Syrian counter-attack. Russia on war alert.

DEBKAfile Special Report August 25, 2013, 7:12 AM (IDT)
US seaborne Tomahawk cruise missile

US seaborne Tomahawk cruise missile

Western and Middle East powers led by Washington began moving Saturday night and Sunday morning, Aug. 25, toward a first strike against Syria following the Assad regime’s large-scale chemical attack in eastern Damascus last Wednesday. The first targeted strike may well signal the start of a series of US-led attacks aimed at toppling the Assad regime, debkafile’s military sources report. They may consist of imposing a no-fly zone and the sealing off of sectors in northern and southern Syria against government forces.

Russian forces also went on war alert
President Barack Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron spent 40 minutes on the phone Saturday night amid the strongest indications to date from Washington that direct military intervention by the West was approaching, following a change in the US president’s posture. He has become convinced that the strike would have to be conducted outside the United Nations.

Military commanders from Western and Muslim countries are meeting Sunday in the Jordanian capital of Amman to coordinate action in Syria, with the participation of the US, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, France, Italy and Canada. Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff chairs the meeting. Saturday night, four American destroyers were moving closer to Syria, armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are capable of precision strikes.
While Western media are reporting at length on Western, Arab and Muslim military preparations, Israel’s armed forces are moving ahead in secrecy. Its officials spread soothing statements asserting Israel’s non-involvement in the Syrian turmoil, as Israel’s military and intelligence agencies get ready for Syria to counter an attack by loosing missiles against their country as well as Jordan and Turkey. All three also expect an explosion of terrorism.
Saturday night, Syrian information minister Omran al-Zoubi, while denying his government was responsible for Wednesday’s poison gas attack, stated over state television that if Syria came under attack, “a mass of flames will ignite the Middle East.”
debkafile’s military sources report that Moscow has placed on war alert Russia’s Mediterranean and Black Sea fleets as well as rapid deployment forces in southern and central Russia.

Three Syrian hospitals told the humanitarian group Médecins Sans Frontières Saturday that they had received around 3,600 patients suffering from symptoms related to a poison gas attack. Of these, 355 had reportedly died.
According to debkafile’s sources, Western demands for proof of the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons before taking action have been countered in the last few hours by the discovery that the forensic evidence will be all but impossible to obtain in view of the special mixture contained in the gas shells. Only tiny quantities of sarin were blended in with a large quantity of riot control agents, a formula developed by Iran to camouflage the use of chemical weapons.

Iran warns against US crossing Syria ‘red line’

August 25, 2013

Iran warns against US crossing Syria ‘red line’ – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Crossing Syria’s red line will have severe consequences for White House, says Iranian military official; Netanyahu says obscene crimes in Syria mustn’t go on

Reuters

Published: 08.25.13, 12:11 / Israel News

Iran on Sunday warned the United States against crossing the “red line” on Syria, saying it would have “severe consequences”, according to the Fars news agency.

“America knows the limitation of the red line of the Syrian front and any crossing of Syria’s red line will have severe consequences for the White House,” said Massoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, reacting to statements by Western officials regarding the possibility of military intervention in Syria, according to Fars.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also addressed the situation in Syria. “What is happening in Syria is a terrible tragedy and an obscene crime. Our hearts go out to the women, children, babies and civilians who were so brutally hurt by the use of weapons of mass destruction,” he said.

The prime minister added that Israel has drawn three conclusions from the chemical weapons assault near Damascus. “First is that this situation cannot go on. Second, that the world’s most dangerous regimes must not posses the most dangerous weapons in the world.

Third, we of course expect this to stop, but we always bear in mind the ancient principle of our sages who said, “If we are not for ourselves, who will be for us?” That is, we always have our ear to the ground. Our finger is a responsible one and if it is required it can be on the trigger. We will always make sure to protect our citizens and the State against those who attempt to harm us or have harmed us – that is our guiding principle.”

President Barack Obama and his top military and national security advisers hashed out options on Saturday for responding to the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria amid “increasing signs” that the government used poison gas against civilians.

Obama spoke with British Prime Minister David Cameron, a top US ally, and agreed that chemical weapon use by Syrian President Syrian President Bashar Assad‘s forces would merit a “serious response,” a spokesperson for the prime minister said in a statement.

Barack Obama’s logic for bombing Syria: The United States will seek to put an end to Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons. – Slate Magazine

August 25, 2013

Barack Obama’s logic for bombing Syria: The United States will seek to put an end to Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons. – Slate Magazine.

President Obama will likely bomb Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria. Here is the logic—and limits—for the president’s plan of attack.

His top civilian and military advisers are meeting in the White House on Saturday to discuss options. American warships are heading toward the area; those already there, at least one of which had been scheduled for a port call, are standing by. Most telling perhaps is a story in the New York Times, noting that Obama’s national-security aides are studying the 1999 air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for action in Syria.

In that conflict 14 years ago, ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, an autonomous province of Serbia, were being massacred by Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic. President Bill Clinton, after much reluctance, decided to intervene, but couldn’t get authorization from the U.N. Security Council, where Russia—Serbia’s main ally—was certain to veto any resolution on the use of force. So Clinton turned to NATO, an appropriate instrument to deal with a crisis in the middle of Europe.

The parallels with Syria are obvious. In this case too, an American president, after much reluctance, seems to be considering the use of force but can’t get authorization from the U.N. because of Russia’s (and China’s) certain veto. The pressures to act have swelled in recent days, with the growing evidence—gleaned not just from Syrian rebels but also from independent physicians’ groups and U.S. intelligence—that Assad’s forces have used chemical weapons, killing more than 1,000 civilians.

But where can Obama turn for the legitimacy of a multinational alliance? Nobody has yet said, but a possible answer is, once again, NATO—this time led perhaps by Turkey, the alliance’s easternmost member, whose leaders are very concerned by the growing death toll and instability in Syria just across their southern border.

The weapons that NATO used—and, more important, did not use—in Kosovo are also likely to appeal to President Obama. Clinton was insistent that no U.S. ground troops be sent to aid the Albanians and told his commanders to keep from losing a single American in the fight, if possible.

And so, the Kosovo campaign was, from America’s vantage, strictly an air war. (Just two U.S. servicemen were killed, and not in battle but in an Apache helicopter that crashed during an exercise.) The air war went on for what seemed, at the time, an eternity—78 days. More than 1,000 NATO planes (including the first Predator drones) flew a total of 38,000 combat sorties. The bombs—most of them dropped from altitudes of 10,000 feet and higher, to avoid air-defense batteries—seemed to have no effect on Milosevic’s actions until the final days of the campaign, and so NATO’s commanders kept adjusting and expanding the target list, which ranged from military bases, factories, and electrical power plants to individual Serbian tanks on the battlefield.

Bad intelligence led to a few horrific mistakes: the bombing of an Albanian caravan, which was confused with a Serbian convoy, and the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, which was thought to be a military relay station. In all, “collateral damage” over the 78 days killed an estimated 1,200 civilians

In the end, though, the war was won. The strategic goals were to stop the fighting, force Milosevic to pull back his army, restore Kosovo as an autonomous Albanian enclave, and insert NATO troops—30,000 of them—as peacekeepers. All the goals were met.

During and after the war, many Republicans and some retired U.S. military officers lambasted Clinton for relying so heavily on NATO. They called it a war “by committee” and claimed that it could have been won much more quickly had America gone it alone. But Gen. Wesley Clark, who was NATO chief at the time, later argued in his book, Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo and the Future of Combat, that the multilateral approach was necessary for two reasons: to give the war legitimacy (especially given the lack of a U.N. resolution) and to counter whatever resistance the Russians might muster (in the end, Milosevic surrendered when he realized that, despite earlier promises, Moscow was not coming to his rescue).

Let’s say that Obama agrees that NATO could be the key force of an air campaign in Syria—and that enough NATO members agree to go along. (In Kosovo, every member of the alliance, except Greece, played some kind of role.) What would be the war’s objectives?

This is the crucial question of any military intervention. It should be asked, and answered, before a decision is made to intervene—along with a calculation of how much effort might be needed to accomplish those objectives and whether the cost is worth the benefit.

A few things are clear from Obama’s record as commander-in-chief: He tends to resist the use of military force. When he sees it as unavoidable, he tends to steer clear of grandiose objectives, and he demands that allied nations come along, even take the lead, especially if their interests in the conflict outweigh ours.

If Obama does use force in Syria, he will do so because of clear evidence that Assad’s regime has killed lots of civilians with chemical weapons. Two considerations will likely drive his decision, if it comes to that. First, he has drawn a “red line” on this issue, publicly, at least five times in the last year, and failure to follow through—especially after the latest revelations—would send confusing signals, at best, about U.S. resolve and credibility. Second, failure to respond would erode, perhaps obliterate, the taboo that the international community has placed on chemical weapons (especially nerve gas) since the end of World War I. I suspect that this factor may be more pertinent to Obama, who takes the issue of international norms very seriously.

So the No. 1 objective of a U.S. air campaign against Syria would be the seemingly limited one of deterring or preventing Assad’s regime from using chemical weapons again. However, Obama’s top generals and intelligence officers would likely tell him that they can’t do much to fulfill this mission. They probably don’t know where the remaining chemical stockpile is located, so they wouldn’t be able to destroy it. And the notion of using military force to deter some future action is a bit vague: It’s unclear whether it would have any effect on Assad. Obama would also have to specify the additional damage he’d inflict if Assad ignored the message, and he’d have to be reasonably sure ahead of time that that damage would be enough to deter him from taking the dare.

A more extravagant, but possibly more feasible, target of an air strike might be Assad’s regime itself—with the objective of destroying it or at least severely weakening it.

In an Aug. 5 letter to Congress, made public just this past week, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a comment pertinent to this point. He said that if Assad’s regime were to topple, none of the myriad Syrian rebel factions are currently in a position to fill the power vacuum. Nor, if any of these factions did come to power, do they seem inclined to promote U.S. interests. For that reason, he expressed skepticism about the good of taking the side of a particular rebel faction or, presumably, sending its fighters more arms.

However, Dempsey also said in this letter that U.S. military intervention could tip the balance against Assad in the Syrian civil war—by, among other things, destroying his military assets and infrastructure as well as reducing the flow of arms from Iran, Russia, and others.

President Obama seemed on the same page when he said, during an interview aired this weekend on CNN, that while the Syrian situation is “troublesome,” his job as president is “to think through what we do from the perspective of … national interests.” He added, “Sometimes what we’ve seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region.”

But Obama also said that if the evidence clearly shows that Assad has used chemical weapons “on a large scale,” that would “start getting to some core national interests … in terms of … making sure that weapons or mass destruction are not proliferating as well as needing to protect our allies, our bases in the region.”

This marked the first time that Obama has mentioned “core national interests” in the context of Syria. It may signal rising pressures to do something—and, again, Kosovo, where Clinton switched his views on intervention dramatically, serves as an intriguing parallel.

In his letter, Gen. Dempsey wrote, “We can destroy the Syrian air force” but he also warned that doing so could “escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict.”

That would be the risk, and it’s the sort of risk that Obama is generally inclined to avoid. There have been some exceptions, most notably in Libya, where he concluded that the important thing was to get rid of Qaddafi and to let those on the ground—aided to some extent by the United States but more by allies with bigger stakes in the region—settle the aftermath.

This may be the position he takes in Syria, in consultation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other interested parties, which would play some role along with the NATO command. If he decides to use force, it’s the only position he could reasonably take. Given the threat, the humanitarian crisis, America’s standing in the region, and the importance of preserving international norms against the use of weapons of mass destruction, the best option might be to destroy huge chunks of the Syrian military, throw Assad’s regime off balance, and let those on the ground settle the aftermath. Maybe this would finally compel Assad to negotiate seriously; maybe it would compel the Russians to backpedal on their support (as NATO’s campaign in Kosovo compelled them to soften their support for Milosevic). Or maybe it would just sire chaos and violence. But there’s plenty of both now, and there might be less—a road to some sort of settlement might be easier to plow—if Assad were severely weakened or no longer around.