Bashar Assad does not need to use chemical weapons to successfully defeat rebel forces in an upcoming battle. However, for a number of reasons, he is likely to do so anyway.
This bears consideration following national security adviser John Bolton’s warning to his Russian counterpart last week, when he said that the U.S. will conduct military strikes against Assad’s regime if he again uses chemical weapons against his people. As Bloomberg reports, that warning is rooted in U.S. intelligence indicating Assad is preparing to use chemical weapons in Idlib province. That province is the last remaining redoubt of the rebellion against Assad’s rule and faces an imminent Russian-Iranian-Assad assault.
So why would Assad use chemical weapons again, even after he has been expressly warned not to?
Well, first off, Assad’s chemical weapons portfolio includes chlorine and sarin nerve agent variants that are useful in clearing out underground bunkers and other positions fortified against artillery and air strikes. Many civilians take shelter in those locations, but Assad has no qualms about annihilating them in order to achieve his objectives. Put simply, morality is not a military concern for Assad in the way that it is for the U.S. and other allied nations.
Second, Assad has a joined desire with Russia to damage U.S. deterrent credibility. Assad knows that by repeatedly using chemical weapons even after U.S. warnings not to do so, he damages U.S. credibility in upholding International order. That damage is a critical Russian priority and informs why Vladimir Putin’s government has actively enabled — and, in some cases, helped direct — Syrian chemical attacks. Indeed, following Assad’s last major chemical weapons attack in April, Russian operatives sanitized the site before international inspectors could arrive and gather evidence.
Finally, Assad doesn’t fear the consequences of any prospective U.S. retaliation. After all, previous U.S. retaliatory strikes have been very measured in their harm to Assad’s regime. That choice of limited strikes sent a message of American hesitation at the moment of decision.
All these factors require close American consideration. What’s at stake with Assad’s use of chemical weapons has always been more than the grotesque impact of those weapons on innocents. Deterring the use of chemical weapons in international affairs is an exigent national security interest of the United States. If Assad decides to use those weapons again, his regime must face significant military repercussions.
