Why Now? Assad’s Chemical Attack on Eastern Ghouta

When small rockets landed in the narrow streets and corridors, fired from government positions in Damascus, families in the neighborhoods of Jobar, Zamalka, Ein Tarma and Arbeen–who have become accustomed to the constant drone of warfare–believed that the thuds were merely part of distant fighting. Many went back to their homes, where alongside their children they died a slow and agonizing death. Neighbors and relatives found the bodies, with no signs of external trauma, their faces blue from asphyxiation, showing tell-tale symptoms of a chemical attack.

Initial reports put the death toll as high as 1,300; a number which has now been lowered to 322 by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Paris-based charity Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) has released information from an affiliated Syrian hospital that has said to have treated 3,600 victims, 355 of which had died. Médecins sans Frontières has said it is certain that neurotoxic agent was used, given the symptoms displayed by Thursday’s victims. The charity has not pointed to a specific chemical agent, and with the abnormal behavior of the chemicals used, experts have been hesitant to make any predictions.

Though it may become clear which chemical agents deployed against rebel-held in the coming days, the Guardian’s Martin Chulov and Mona Mahmood have reported that three or more victims of the attack have been smuggled to Jordan for medical tests in order to determine if and which neurotoxic agent was used. On Thursday, representatives of three of the permanent members of the Security Council, including the United States, Britain and France delivered a letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, calling for an investigation into this alleged chemical attack. Signed by a further 37 members, the request called on the 20 United Nations chemical weapons inspectors currently in Damascus to thoroughly investigate Thursday’s attack.

The United Nations team is currently in the country to investigate the use of chemical weapons at three sites, including Khan al-Assal. Russia and the Syrian government have blamed rebel forces for March’s chemical attack in this strategically located town near Aleppo. Under their agreement with the Syrian government the group of inspectors have a limited mandate: to only investigate whether or not chemical weapons have been utilized, without assigning blame. Negotiations between the United Nations High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Angela Kane, and the regime have resulted in gaining access by experts to the sites associated with Thursday’s chemical attack. While the investigators have been given permission by the state, their mandate is still limited to determine whether or not chemical weapons have been employed, short of declaring a culprit for the use of these barbaric tools of war. Furthermore, many have decried the regime’s latest concession as too little too late; an investigation which is both limited, and given the length of time since the attack, will most likely prove inconclusive.

The regime’s willingness to allow inspectors into the Eastern Ghouta region comes as the international community has stepped up its rhetoric against the Syrian state. Laurent Fabius, the French Foreign Minister, has told reports that if chemical weapons were employed by the regime, then the use of force by the international community would be a justified response. His British counterpart, Foreign Secretary William Hague, has pointed the finger squarely at the Assad regime for Thursday’s atrocities. While London and Paris have been the most vocal in their response, the strongest tangible moves have come from the United States.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has told reporters that the president has asked the Pentagon to prepare military options for Syria. Barack Obama met with his National Security Council, a gathering of the who’s who of foreign policy officials, on Saturday to discuss possible retaliatory steps. While stopping short of referring to the use of chemical weapons as a “red line”, it is clear that Washington is now seriously considering limited intervention in the two and a half year old conflict. In a sign of what may be to come, the United States Navy has now expanded its presence in the Mediterranean Sea with a fourth destroyer, capable of delivering Tomahawk cruise missiles. Prominent Israeli politicians, conscious of the dangers posed by Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles, have come out in support of a robust American response. Such statements by the Israelis, who have struck four times inside Syria during the civil conflict, may strengthen American resolve that strikes are in the region’s interest.

Given this vocal international response to the use of chemical weapons, and the looming threat of direct American intervention, the use of chemical weapons by the regime now seems counterproductive. Over the past few days analysts have attempted to shed light on the reasoning behind the regime’s use of chemical weapons. Some commentators have pointed to hardliners within the regime’s armed forces. These Syria watchers believe that hard line elements orchestrated the attack to prevent Assad from making future concessions. While such a scenario is plausible, regime victories in the governorates of Homs and Latakia, coupled with robust foreign support, has ensured that Assad did not have to come to the negotiating table, let alone contemplate a temporary agreement.

Others have suggested that Bashar al-Assad may not care about international opinion and in fact called for or tacitly approved of the attack in order display his increasing confidence for the international community. Granted, Assad is in a confident position given the above-mentioned victories, but he and his inner circle are fully aware that their ability to survive the uprising is based upon limiting any chance of direct intervention by the West.  A major chemical weapons attack endangers the regime’s strategic calculation and threatens to unleash international backlash, which could eventually change the balance of power in Syria in the opposition’s favor.

Given the international risks associated with the use of chemical weapons, it is also clear that the regime balanced the possibility of international intervention with the threat of a rebel offensive against the central districts of Damascus. On July 24 rebels launched a major offensive and pushed into the Jobar neighborhood, one of the sites of Wednesday’s chemical attacks. From this district, rebel forces had made a concerted push into government held areas not contested since December 2012. Counter offenses by the regime had failed and the July offensive was the first time the opposition had been able to challenge the government in three areas while simultaneously maintaining attacks against the regime’s other major targets.

Underlying these previous rebel gains were two factors: the increased interoperability of rebel factions and the capture and use of heavy weapons. Eastern Ghouta’s 23 rebel battalions have coalesced into a coordinated front known as Jabhat Fatah al-‘Asima. This increased coordination had allowed rebel forces to make a sustained push on government positions from Jobar, supplied by outlying rebel strongholds, all of which were targeted in Thursday’s attack. Advanced weapons captured by rebel groups have also been used effectively, including the deployment of SA-16 and SA-8 anti-aircraft systems, creating a virtual no-fly zone to the east of the capital.

These rebel gains have come at a time when the regime has concentrated its resources on re-capturing Homs Governorate, depriving the Damascus front of the units required to roll back rebel gains. With rebels pushing into regime districts from Jobar it seems that the decision was made by high level officials to employ chemical weapons in an attempt to neutralize the threat of a rebel incursion into the regime’s core areas. With four American destroyers patrolling the Mediterranean Sea Assad may come to regret the decision. The Syrian President and high level officials are now hoping that threats of regional instability and the diplomatic cover provided by Moscow and Beijing will keep the United States from taking retaliatory action.