SYRIA

Television and media images from Syria have been truly horrendous. Pictures have been depicted showing dozens of bodies laid out in rows, many of them children. Others, including very young infants, are seen suffering convulsions and spasms – symptoms that are typical of a major gas attack.

Ghastly as the images are, however, is all as clear cut as it seems? Photographs and video productions have been circulated by Syrian opposition activists; their release, as a UN team arrived to investigate the reported use of chemical weapons, maybe perceived as being opportunistic with powerful propaganda value.

The conundrum here is whether any leader, even one as beleaguered and brutal in defence of his presidency as Bashar al-Assad, be so heedless and perverse of the consequences as to launch such an attack just as the UN inspectors were arriving. Assad has denied he did it, but many say he would have if he had done it.

The alternative is even less plausible – that the Syrian rebels staged, exaggerated or even manipulated an attack on areas they hold with the intention of persuading both the UN inspectors and international opinion towards a Western intervention.

Whichever it is, we should constantly bear in mind the barbaric and brutal lengths to which a desperate regime will go to keep power.

Whilst the response from most international leaders has been one of outrage, comments have been tempered, rightly, with a measure of caution. ‘If proven’ is the crucial phrase that has emanated from Britain, France, and from others who are calling for more direct action. Legally, it is also a pointer as to what the priority should now be: to establish, so far as is possible, the truth of what happened. To fulfil that end, the UN inspectors must be granted immediate and unfettered access to the area of the alleged atrocity.

Establishing the truth is vital because the stakes are so high. The use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict was defined by President Obama as a ‘red line’ when he said almost a year ago that if the Assad regime deployed chemical weapons, ‘the whole calculus would change’. This was widely interpreted as a condition for the U.S. to intervene, either directly or by arming the rebels.

Yet, nor can it be excluded that the rebels have attempted to orchestrate something in which they might force America’s hand. So far, an EU investigation has only reported small scale use of sarin nerve gas on both sides. But if such an extensive attack, as seems to have taken place this week, is found to be the work of Syrian government forces, that could not but ‘change the calculus’.

Crucially, though, would it (or should it) prompt Western intervention? Intervention can take various forms, from air strikes targeting Syrian weapons, cruise missile launches from the naval fleet operating in the region, or a full ground incursion with boots on the ground. But as we know from Iraq and Afghanistan, even limited intervention tends to produce perverse and unwieldy results. In Syria it could be even more riskier, given the regional complexity and its ever more volatile neighbourhood.

At the present moment, doing nothing seems less perilous than direct intervention. Being sucked into a bloody civil war that is increasingly sectarian with regional alliances taking hold – Iran and Hezbollah siding with the Assad regime, and Saudi Arabia arming the rebels – direct intervention would certainly appear the worse of two evils. But even now the case has still not been made for direct intervention in Syria.