Syria chemical weapons scare: Is Assad threatening to use them, or lose them?

A report suggests that Syria has ramped up activity at chemical-weapons sites. But President Bashar al-Assad might simply be sending a message to the international community.

In this Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2012 photo, a Free Syrian Army fighter aims his weapon during heavy clashes with government forces in Aleppo, Syria. (AP Photo/Narciso Contreras)

The spike in concern over Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons stems in part from worries that an increasingly desperate President Bashar al-Assad might use them against advancing rebel forces in the country’s 21-month-old civil war.

But Mr. Assad also might be sending a different signal to the US and the international community, analysts say. By ordering “activity” at chemical weapons sites, Assad could be reminding the international powers demanding his departure that his fall would likely be followed by chaos – in which radical Islamists could get their hands on Syria’s weapons of mass destruction.

“By far the greater threat is that the state collapses, with the threat of terrorists getting their hands on these weapons,” says Charles Blair, an expert at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) in Washington.

Are you smarter than a US diplomat? Take our Foreign Service Exam.

US officials claim that the Syrian military has gone as far as loading precursor chemicals for the nerve gas sarin into bombs, NBC News reported Thursday. Their use would have serious consequences for the Assad regime. President Obama repeated this week that any use of the weapons by Syria is a red line for the United States.

The fate of Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons is something that concerns the US. Earlier this year, a Pentagon report concluded that it would take 70,000 troops to find and secure Syria's known stockpiles, Mr. Blair notes.

Publicly, Syrian officials maintain that the Assad regime would never use chemical weapons against the Syrian people. On Thursday, one member of the regime, Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Maqdad, told Lebanese television that “the United States and some European States” were fabricating the chemical-weapons scare to create a “pretext” for intervention in the conflict.

US officials have to consider all the possible motivations behind Assad’s actions, military experts say. But some are confident the US would act preemptively if it was convinced that Assad was on the verge of launching a chemical attack.

“If [the US] had knowledge of them loading these weapons onto planes, they’d go in and take them out right away, I’d expect to see that,” says Lawrence Korb, a defense analyst at the Center for American Progress in Washington. “The problem is that you’d have to have very good intelligence on where to go to get them.”

But Blair says he can envision a range of ways the US might respond to a chemical attack.

The “fast route,” he says, would be to launch a “punitive” strike in retaliation and to try to take out Assad. The “longer route,” he adds, might be to return to the United Nations Security Council to get support for international intervention – support Russia and China have denied so far.

“There’s such a taboo against chemical-weapons use that you’d have to assume that Russia and China would no longer block UN action,” he says.

Another question is what the international community would do to aid the victims of an attack. Blair says treatment does exist for the effects of some of the chemical agents Syria is thought to possess – depending on the severity of the impact. But nobody knows for sure that Syria has chemical weapons, or exactly what they have if they do possess them, he says.

The most treatable victims would be those that had quick access to international assistance – in other words, the victims of an attack near one of Syria’s borders. But Blair adds that such a step would almost certainly lead to outside intervention, starting with the country – for example, Turkey – whose border was affected by the attack.

Still, Blair is far from convinced that Assad would ever use the weapons – saying that doing so would be “suicidal,” something Syrian officials acknowledge.

Assad may be up to something else altogether, Mr. Korb says: “He might be using this as a bargaining chip to win himself free passage out of the country.”

Most Expensive Military Programs

1. F-35 Lightning II

2. Ballistic Missile Defense System

3. DDG-51 Guided Missile Destroyer

4. Pratt & Whitney F135

5. Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey

Chemical weapons risk: Syrian missiles and shells

WASHINGTON (AP) — Growing fear that civil war in Syria could unleash the world's first use ofchemical weapons in nearly three decades is based on two grim scenarios — neither considered likely but both carrying risks of civilian massacre and a major escalation of violence.

The first is that President Bashar Assad, in a last-ditch effort to save his regime, would order chemical attacks — either as a limited demonstration to the rebels of his willingness to use the internationally banned weapons, or in a large-scale offensive designed to turn the tide of a conflict that already has killed an estimated 40,000.

The second is that some portion of Assad's arsenal could be moved to Iran or Lebanon or fall into the hands of foreign fighters with ties to terrorist groups who are helping Syrian rebels.

What kinds of chemicals are in question? What weapons?

News confirmed by The Associated Press this week that an unknown number of weapons in Syria were recently loaded with the nerve agent sarin brought the West's fears into sharp relief.

Syria has never confirmed that it even has chemical weapons. But it is believed to possess substantial stockpiles of mustard gas and a range of nerve agents, including sarin, a highly toxic substance that can suffocate its victims by paralyzing muscles around their lungs.

James Quinlivan, a Rand Corp. analyst who studies the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, said Syria is thought to have hundreds of tons of chemical weapons material, including not only sarin and mustard gas but possibly also the nerve agent VX, which, like sarin, kills by attacking the central nervous system.

Iraq's Saddam Hussein used sarin and mustard gas on Kurds in northern Iraq in a 1987-88 campaign that killed thousands. That was the last time state-controlled chemical weapons were used; a Japanese doomsday cult unleashed sarin in the Tokyo subway system in 1995, killing 13.

The precise dimensions of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal are not known, in part because it has never been subjected to outside inspection. Experts say it is a formidable collection, but the weapons date back almost 40 years — when Assad's father, President Hafez Assad, began accumulating them — and have not been modernized.

"Frankly, you'd stand as much chance of committing a self-inflicted wound as of actually killing opponents," said Aram Nerguizian, a Mideast security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "These systems are not going to achieve the end state that the regime wants, which is regime survival."

For example, the arsenal apparently does not include weapons that combine or mix chemical ingredients after a shell or missile is fired; instead the mixing must be done manually prior to launching the weapon, Nerguizian said.

U.S. officials have warned Assad there would be unspecified "consequences" if he used his chemical weapons or lost control of them. That could include military intervention, aided perhaps by allies such as Turkey. The U.S. and its allies might also launch a pre-emptive military operation to secure the weapons before they could be used.

One administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to talk publicly, defined what would trigger a response: the use of chemical weapons, or movement with the intent to use them, or word that they were falling into the hands of a group like Hezbollah, that the U.S. considers a terrorist group.

America and its allies have already begun preparing.

A U.S. special operations training team is in neighboring Jordan, teaching troops how to secure chemical stockpiles, according to one current and one former U.S. official briefed on the matter. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the issue publicly.

U.S. officials have said it could take as many as 75,000 ground troops to secure all of Syria's dozens of chemical sites in a worst-case scenario in which the intervention would face Syrian resistance. The Obama administration has been consulting with Turkey, Jordan, Israel, Russia and others on possible courses of action.

"We're prepared for the full range of contingencies," Pentagon press secretary George Little said Friday.

The U.S.-led NATO alliance this week agreed to move Patriot missiles to Turkey as a defensive measure. Patriots are capable of neutralizing a chemical warhead aboard a missile by incinerating it in flight, although a portion of the chemical could fall in populated areas.

Jeffrey White, a defense expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that in addition to air-delivered weapons, the Syrian military can put chemical warheads on missiles like the Soviet-designed Scud, as well as artillery shells and short-range rockets and fire them into populated areas.

"Without intelligence warnings from external sources, rebel combatants and civilians would be highly vulnerable to surprise chemical attacks, increasing the chances for major casualties," White wrote in policy paper this week. In his view, Washington should be prepared for the "growing possibility" of chemical attacks in Syria.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday that the U.S. is concerned that "as the opposition advances, in particular on Damascus, that the regime might very well consider the use of chemical weapons."

Former CIA officer Reuel Marc Gerecht says Assad and his minority Alawite tribe view the fight against the rebels as a "war to the death." Thus, "it's not at all inconceivable that he would use" his chemical arms, he said.

"There is no telling what a mad dog will do when it's cornered," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the House intelligence Committee. He added he still finds it hard to believe Assad would take that step.

Some experts believe a more likely scenario is that groups with terrorist ties who are helping the rebels might acquire some of Assad's weapons of mass destruction.

"I think the big problem is when and if Assad loses control of his weapons and sites," said David Friedman, a former head of the Israeli military's chemical-biological protection division. "Then, of course, weapons might fall into opposition hands and they might use it. This is a real danger and threat."

Quinlivan said Syrian Scud missiles carrying chemical warheads have a range of about 160 miles. That's just beyond the distance from the Syrian capital, Damascus, to Tel Aviv.

If Syria used chemical weapons, it would be violating international law — specifically, the 1925 Geneva Protocol that bans the use of chemical and biological weapons. But because it is not a signatory to the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, Syria has reserved its right to produce and store chemical weapons. The only other countries that have not ratified that convention are Egypt, Israel, Angola, South Sudan, Somalia and Burma.

The chief of the organization in charge of implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention, Ahmet Uzumcu of Turkey, said Friday he wrote to Syrian authorities urging them to join the treaty as a way of assuring the world that Syria accepts that the use of such weapons is "completely contrary to global sentiment."

Earlier this week, Syria's deputy foreign minister, Faisal Mekdad, said in a TV interview that Syria would not use chemical weapons against its own people.

"We cannot possibly commit suicide," he said. "Syria is a responsible country."

___

Iran's long-range missiles said to lag U.S. intelligence fears

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An internal report for the U.S. Congress has concluded that Iran probably is no longer on track, if it ever was, to having an ocean-crossing missile as soon as 2015.

The study casts doubt on a view long held by U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran could be able to test-fly by 2015 an intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, if it receives "sufficient foreign assistance."

"It is increasingly uncertain whether Iran will be able to achieve an ICBM capability by 2015," said the report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, which works exclusively for lawmakers.

Iran does not appear to be receiving as much help as would likely be necessary, notably from China or Russia, to reach that goal, according to the 66-page report dated Thursday.

It is also increasingly tough for Tehran to obtain certain critical components and materials because of international sanctions related to its disputed nuclear program.

In addition, Iran has not demonstrated the kind of flight test program generally deemed necessary to produce an ICBM, said the study by Steven Hildreth, a specialist in missile defense who consulted seven external expert reviewers.

The study appears to be the most detailed unclassified look yet at Iran's controversial ballistic missile and space programs. It does not address Tehran's nuclear program, which has prompted international fears that it could lead to atomic weapons at short notice.

An effective nuclear-weapons capability requires three things to work together - enough fissile material, a reliable weapons device and an effective delivery system, such as a ballistic missile that can grow out of a space launch program.

Iran's efforts to develop, test and field ballistic missiles and build a space launch capability have helped drive billions of dollars of U.S. ballistic missile defense spending, further destabilized the Middle East and contributed to Israel's push for pre-emptive action.

Iranian missile threats have also prompted a U.S. drive for an increasingly capable shield for Europe, largely built by contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp, Boeing Co, Raytheon Co and Northrop Grumman Corp.

ASSESSING THE ICBM THREAT

The U.S. intelligence community since 1999 has stuck to the conditional 2015 date, provided Iran gets enough outside help, for a potential Iranian ICBM capable of reaching the United States, which is at least 10,000 kilometers away.

An ICBM is generally defined as having a range greater than 5,500 km (3,400 miles). Such missiles from Iran could threaten targets throughout Europe and the Middle East.

"With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran may be technically capable of flight-testing an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015," the Defense Department told Congress in its 2012 annual report on Iranian military power.

Michael Birmingham, a spokesman for the office of the Director of National Intelligence, which leads the 17 organizations which comprise the U.S. intelligence community, said views among spy agencies vary on the Iranian ICBM outlook.

He added that the 2015 date cited by the Defense Department was "heavily caveated."

Iran appears to have a significant space launch effort, not merely a disguised cover for ICBM development, the Congressional Research Service report said.

Iran became the ninth country to demonstrate an indigenous space launch capability on February 2, 2009, when it launched an Omid satellite from a Safir 2 rocket.

Iran has stated it plans to use future launchers to put intelligence-gathering satellites in orbit, a capability that is a decade or so in the future.

Tom Collina, research director of the private Arms Control Association, a Washington-based advocacy group, said the report suggests the United States could respond in a more "measured" way to a potential Iranian long-range missile threat.

"We do not have to deploy missile defenses on the East Coast by 2015, as some in Congress want, nor do we have to rush missile defenses into Europe, which makes Russia nervous," he said.