Israel ambivalent about US intervention in Syria

WASHINGTON – US President Barack Obama's response to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons against rebels and civilians is perceived by Jerusalem officials as an important test of Obama's reliability regarding statements he had made on the Iran nuclear issue, the New York Times wrote Saturday.

However, even as the newspaper noted that a US intervention in Syria would show Tehran that Obama was not afraid to act, a senior Israeli official voiced concerns that action in Syria might divert attention from Israel's main concern – Iran's nuclear program.

Related stories:

• Obama: Syria's use of chemical arms a 'game changer'

• Cameron says Britain won't send troops to Syria

• US lawmakers demand action on Syria chemical weapons

  
  

The report in the New York Times follows growing pressure on the US Congress to declare North Syria a “no fly zone” as well as claims by both Israeli and US governments that Assad used chemical weapons, including Sarin gas, in an attack on Aleppo.

Obama has said in the past that chemical weapons would signify a "red line" in the Syrian civil war and that if such warfare were launched, the world would not stand idly by. Friday, however, at a White House meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah, Obama said that the US must gather more evidence before taking any action.

The White House hinted in a briefing held shortly before the meeting that there was still more evidence to be collected in order to back the emerging assessment that the Assad army had, to a limited extent, used chemical weapons.

The US government emphasized that there had indeed been limited use of sarin gas within Syria. Still, officials said, there was no evidence showing who was responsible for its use.

The Pentagon is preparing options for military action for the moment when it becomes clear beyond doubt that the Assad regime indeed used chemical weapons against its own people. Such an attack would take place against chemical sites and command and control centers of the Syrian army, with the option of introducing US Special Forces to Syrian soil, without activating the regular US military.

An Israeli source warned in the New York Times that there were potential consequences to bombing chemical weapons sites, saying such actions could cause the very catastrophe that they were meant to prevent.

At the same time, the source said, sending forces to protect chemical sites was also not necessarily an option, as they were likely to find themselves in the midst of a civil war.

In addition to pressures from within the US, Israel and other countries in the Gulf are closely following Obama’s responses to the events in Syria, in order to gauge his level of seriousness when it comes to taking action against Iran, should Tehran cross US’s red line – initiating the process of building an atomic bomb.

• Follow Ynetnews on Facebook and Twitter
  

• Receive Ynetnews updates directly to your desktop