Syria's chemical weapons, Iran's
red line By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
NEW YORK - If there is anyone in Damascus
contemplating the use of chemical weapons as a
means of political survival he is utterly
mistaken. Saddam Hussein tried that with the Kurds
and look where he ended up - in the dustbin of
history. No better destiny will await the
embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad if he
resorts to the large stockpile of chemical weapons
to stave off the advancing rebels.
Sure,
he may strike a temporary blow, but it is a given
that this will be tantamount to digging his own
grave, as the opposition will be ever more
determined to dislodge him forcefully and the
international community will back them all they
can.
In turn, this calls for a stern
warning from Tehran to its traditional ally in
Damascus that Syria should refrain from even
contemplating, let alone
preparing, the use of chemical weapons, otherwise
it will be nearly impossible for Tehran to
continue supporting Damascus. To do so would
blemish Tehran and stigmatize it in the region for
a long time, a heavy price no politician in Tehran
is prepared to pay.
The growing fear that
Assad may use his chemical canisters against
ferocious opponents bent on the destruction of the
Alawite-led regime has elicited a warning from US
President Barack Obama regarding the "dire
consequences", one of which would be a more
interventionist approach by the US and North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), perhaps
leading to a "no-fly zone" in parts of Syria.
For its part, Tehran must also make clear
to Assad that it does not wish to be associated
with a regime that commits the taboo of mass
carnage, since there are hundreds if not thousands
of innocent civilians who are sure to die as a
result of any use of chemical weapons. Iran prides
itself for its high moral standards, which was
reflected in its refusal to emulate Saddam
Hussein's chemical attacks during the eight-year
Iran-Iraq war, and therefore it cannot compromise
its norms and principles so easily for the sake of
a troubled ally.
The reason a public
statement by the Iranian leaders regarding this
matter is necessary and called for is that it can
act as a break on Assad's chemical warfare plans
and simultaneously build confidence with aspects
of the Syrian opposition. Tehran recently hosted a
meeting for the more "loyal" Syrian opposition
groups and the circle of its contact group with
the Syrian opposition can grow if the latter are
convinced that Iran behaves according to certain
guidelines that are inspired by its Islamist world
view.
On the contrary, should the news
break out that Assad has used his chemical weapons
without much concern about the plight of
civilians, then it will be doubly difficult for
Tehran to stand by that regime and continue to
support it - even domestically this will become
problematic in the light of presidential elections
to be held in Iran next June.
Iran's
ethical behavior during the war with Iraq,
mentioned above, can be a good point of reference
for Assad, who should do much more to rein in his
military to refrain from committing atrocities and
let the other side further tarnish its own image -
it has already come under fire because of multiple
gruesome video images of their cold-blooded murder
of their prisoners - thus allowing him to make
some gains in the battle for the hearts and minds
of Syrians.
That battle, already going
badly for Assad's regime, will undoubtedly spiral
toward oblivion if the government uses chemical
weapons, irrespective of whatever are the
short-term gains. Nothing good in the long-term
can come about as a result of such a decision. At
present, Assad can still count on elements of the
world community, for example Russia, China, Iran,
some Latin nations, defending him, yet it will be
doubly difficult for those regimes to sustain
their support once the red line on chemical and
biological weapons is crossed. In Iran in
particular, the news will alienate many young and
educated Iranians from any politician preaching
solidarity with the Assad regime.
Still,
chances are that Tehran may miscalculate the
backlashes that the Assad regime will face if it
is accused and found guilty of using chemical
weapons. The reason behind an Iranian silence, on
the other hand, is rather easy to understand; that
is, a tendency to overlook a close ally's
misconduct and simply hope for the best.
This is a very short-sighted of and
definitely not in line with either Iran's national
interests nor its Islamist self-understanding.
This is why Tehran must act now, and publicly, by
putting aside any and all hesitation and remind
Assad that its support is not a bottomless pit and
there are certain limits, one of which pertains to
chemical and biological weapons.
The
Ba'athists in Damascus may not like it, yet few in
their ranks may have the foresight to realize that
Iran has Damascus's best interest in mind by
pre-empting any use of chemical weapons through a
forceful denunciation, one that is not predicated
on political and military contingency and is,
instead, categorical.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
