Chemical weapons pose nightmare scenario in Syria

BEIRUT (AP) - The U.S. and regional allies are closely monitoring Syria's chemical weapons - caught in the midst of a raging civil war - but options for securing the toxic agents stuffed into shells, bombs and missiles are fraught with risk.
President Bashar Assad's embattled regime is believed to have one of the largest chemical weapons stockpiles in the world. Fears have risen that a cornered Assad might use them or that they could fall into the hands of extremists, whether the Lebanese Hezbollah militia, an Assad ally, or al-Qaida-inspired militants among the rebels.
For now, the main storage and production sites are considered secure. However, some suggest the civil war poses one of the gravest risks of losing control over non-conventional weapons since the breakup of the Soviet Union two decades ago.
Syria's suspected arsenal is scattered across a number of locations, mainly in the north and west, where fighting between Assad's forces and rebels seeking to oust him has been heaviest.
"We need to be up front that this is not something very easy to do," Steven Bucci, a former senior Defense Department official, said of attempts to keep the weapons locked up.
The price of military action against the arsenal is prohibitively high, Bucci and others say.
Airstrikes on chemical weapons depots could inadvertently release toxic clouds or expose them to looters. A ground operation would require thousands of troops, and the U.S. administration has pushed back on any suggestion of direct military action in Syria. Pinpoint operations by special forces could easily go wrong.
The issue has been a topic in the U.S. presidential campaign. Republican nominee Mitt Romney has said he would send U.S. troops into Syria if needed to prevent the spread of chemical weapons, while President Barack Obama has said that movement or use of chemical weapons would have "enormous consequences."
Syria's secrecy compounds the problem. Damascus hasn't signed non-proliferation agreements, long denying it has chemical weapons. Syria "is a black hole for us," said Michael Luhan of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, declining to give an estimate of the size of the arsenal because foreign inspectors are barred.
Other experts acknowledge there is no firm data and say they base their estimates largely on U.S. intelligence reports.
Syria is believed to have hundreds, if not thousands, of tons of chemical agents, said Leonard Spector, deputy director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, California. This includes mustard gas, a blistering agent, and the more lethal nerve agents sarin and VX, he said.
The chemical agents are believed to be designed for use in artillery shells, aerial bombs and ballistic missiles, said Scott Stewart of the U.S. security think tank Stratfor.
It is not known to what extent the chemical agents have already placed in munitions. Bucci, of The Heritage Foundation, said he believed "most of it" has been put into artillery shells and rockets.
Bucci and Stewart estimate some 50 sites are associated with the program.
A map by the Monterey think tank shows four production sites: one 20 kilometers (12 miles) southeast of Aleppo, Syria's largest city and a major battleground, and three outside the cities of Hama, Homs and Latakia. Storage sites have been identified near Hama, Homs and the capital Damascus, which also has a research and development facility. Three sites are marked as having dual use infrastructure, for both civilian and military purposes.
Anxiety rose over the summer after the regime warned it might use chemical weapons against foreign attackers. Obama warned Assad that the threat of chemical warfare is a "red line" for the U.S. Even key Assad ally Russia told him to stand down.
Syria has not used chemical weapons, unlike Iraq's former leader Saddam Hussein. Analysts say the bigger threat is that the weapons fall into the wrong hands.
Such worries over the fate of advanced weaponry were highlighted on Friday, when a shadowy militant group known as Jabhat al-Nusra joined Syrian rebels in seizing a government missile defense base.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said late last month that Washington believes the main sites are secure but the regime apparently moved some chemical weapons to protect them. Panetta acknowledged that the U.S. doesn't know what happened to some of the weapons.
Spector told Congress this summer that the regime could lose control over chemical weapons sites, even as it holds on to Syria's urban centers. The rebels control stretches of countryside in the north and the west, close to where the main production facilities are believed to be, said Spector, a former senior U.S. arms control official. With front lines shifting, such sites could fall behind rebel lines or its regime guards could abandon them.
Hezbollah fighters, meanwhile, could take advantage of the chaos and try to loot installations. Israel, which fought a war with Hezbollah in 2006, has warned it would act, presumably by striking suspicious Hezbollah convoys.
However, the possibilities for military action are limited because of the size and decentralization of Syria's arsenal. Bucci and Stewart said airstrikes carry too much risk of harming civilians, while targeted operations would not be able to secure all sites simultaneously.
Using special forces "would necessitate putting troops in harm's way, without overwhelming support," said Stewart, a former anti-terrorism investigator at the U.S. State Department. "The only way to secure all the sites in a comprehensive manner is through a large ground force, which is politically untenable at this point."
Technical and political restraints could decrease the risks of militants obtaining and using chemical weapons.
Militant groups may lack the proper gear, training and logistics to move chemical weapons, said Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Some chemicals are stored in heavy bulk containers, while so-called binary munitions for missile warheads require separate components that are likely stored separately, he noted.
Smaller munitions, such as an artillery shell filled with chemical agents, would be easy to move, Bucci said. Militants could "fit it in a suitcase, carry it around and use it by hooking it up to other munitions," he said.
Hezbollah could be deterred by the threat of Israeli retaliation, said Stewart. Such payback would jeopardize Hezbollah's standing as a key military and political force in Lebanon.
"The largest concern is jihadist actors getting their hands on chemical weapons munitions and using them in the region," such as firing rockets at Israel or targeting Western diplomatic missions in the area, he said.
For now, the West's best options are deterrence and containment, analysts said.
This includes warning the regime and the rebels of the dire consequences of using or losing control of chemical weapons and working with Syria's neighbors, particularly Jordan and Turkey, to prevent chemical weapons from being smuggled out of Syria.
On Thursday, Jordanian officials confirmed that U.S. special operations forces and their Jordanian counterparts have been training at a compound some 80 kilometers (50 miles) from the Syrian border how to protect civilians from possible chemical attacks.
"With chemical weapons, it starts to get so beyond the pale," Bucci said of the potential threat. "It scares the heck out of everybody, rightfully."
President Bashar Assad's embattled regime is believed to have one of the largest chemical weapons stockpiles in the world. Fears have risen that a cornered Assad might use them or that they could fall into the hands of extremists, whether the Lebanese Hezbollah militia, an Assad ally, or al-Qaida-inspired militants among the rebels.
For now, the main storage and production sites are considered secure. However, some suggest the civil war poses one of the gravest risks of losing control over non-conventional weapons since the breakup of the Soviet Union two decades ago.
Syria's suspected arsenal is scattered across a number of locations, mainly in the north and west, where fighting between Assad's forces and rebels seeking to oust him has been heaviest.
"We need to be up front that this is not something very easy to do," Steven Bucci, a former senior Defense Department official, said of attempts to keep the weapons locked up.
The price of military action against the arsenal is prohibitively high, Bucci and others say.
Airstrikes on chemical weapons depots could inadvertently release toxic clouds or expose them to looters. A ground operation would require thousands of troops, and the U.S. administration has pushed back on any suggestion of direct military action in Syria. Pinpoint operations by special forces could easily go wrong.
The issue has been a topic in the U.S. presidential campaign. Republican nominee Mitt Romney has said he would send U.S. troops into Syria if needed to prevent the spread of chemical weapons, while President Barack Obama has said that movement or use of chemical weapons would have "enormous consequences."
Syria's secrecy compounds the problem. Damascus hasn't signed non-proliferation agreements, long denying it has chemical weapons. Syria "is a black hole for us," said Michael Luhan of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, declining to give an estimate of the size of the arsenal because foreign inspectors are barred.
Other experts acknowledge there is no firm data and say they base their estimates largely on U.S. intelligence reports.
Syria is believed to have hundreds, if not thousands, of tons of chemical agents, said Leonard Spector, deputy director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, California. This includes mustard gas, a blistering agent, and the more lethal nerve agents sarin and VX, he said.
The chemical agents are believed to be designed for use in artillery shells, aerial bombs and ballistic missiles, said Scott Stewart of the U.S. security think tank Stratfor.
It is not known to what extent the chemical agents have already placed in munitions. Bucci, of The Heritage Foundation, said he believed "most of it" has been put into artillery shells and rockets.
Bucci and Stewart estimate some 50 sites are associated with the program.
A map by the Monterey think tank shows four production sites: one 20 kilometers (12 miles) southeast of Aleppo, Syria's largest city and a major battleground, and three outside the cities of Hama, Homs and Latakia. Storage sites have been identified near Hama, Homs and the capital Damascus, which also has a research and development facility. Three sites are marked as having dual use infrastructure, for both civilian and military purposes.
Anxiety rose over the summer after the regime warned it might use chemical weapons against foreign attackers. Obama warned Assad that the threat of chemical warfare is a "red line" for the U.S. Even key Assad ally Russia told him to stand down.
Syria has not used chemical weapons, unlike Iraq's former leader Saddam Hussein. Analysts say the bigger threat is that the weapons fall into the wrong hands.
Such worries over the fate of advanced weaponry were highlighted on Friday, when a shadowy militant group known as Jabhat al-Nusra joined Syrian rebels in seizing a government missile defense base.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said late last month that Washington believes the main sites are secure but the regime apparently moved some chemical weapons to protect them. Panetta acknowledged that the U.S. doesn't know what happened to some of the weapons.
Spector told Congress this summer that the regime could lose control over chemical weapons sites, even as it holds on to Syria's urban centers. The rebels control stretches of countryside in the north and the west, close to where the main production facilities are believed to be, said Spector, a former senior U.S. arms control official. With front lines shifting, such sites could fall behind rebel lines or its regime guards could abandon them.
Hezbollah fighters, meanwhile, could take advantage of the chaos and try to loot installations. Israel, which fought a war with Hezbollah in 2006, has warned it would act, presumably by striking suspicious Hezbollah convoys.
However, the possibilities for military action are limited because of the size and decentralization of Syria's arsenal. Bucci and Stewart said airstrikes carry too much risk of harming civilians, while targeted operations would not be able to secure all sites simultaneously.
Using special forces "would necessitate putting troops in harm's way, without overwhelming support," said Stewart, a former anti-terrorism investigator at the U.S. State Department. "The only way to secure all the sites in a comprehensive manner is through a large ground force, which is politically untenable at this point."
Technical and political restraints could decrease the risks of militants obtaining and using chemical weapons.
Militant groups may lack the proper gear, training and logistics to move chemical weapons, said Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Some chemicals are stored in heavy bulk containers, while so-called binary munitions for missile warheads require separate components that are likely stored separately, he noted.
Smaller munitions, such as an artillery shell filled with chemical agents, would be easy to move, Bucci said. Militants could "fit it in a suitcase, carry it around and use it by hooking it up to other munitions," he said.
Hezbollah could be deterred by the threat of Israeli retaliation, said Stewart. Such payback would jeopardize Hezbollah's standing as a key military and political force in Lebanon.
"The largest concern is jihadist actors getting their hands on chemical weapons munitions and using them in the region," such as firing rockets at Israel or targeting Western diplomatic missions in the area, he said.
For now, the West's best options are deterrence and containment, analysts said.
This includes warning the regime and the rebels of the dire consequences of using or losing control of chemical weapons and working with Syria's neighbors, particularly Jordan and Turkey, to prevent chemical weapons from being smuggled out of Syria.
On Thursday, Jordanian officials confirmed that U.S. special operations forces and their Jordanian counterparts have been training at a compound some 80 kilometers (50 miles) from the Syrian border how to protect civilians from possible chemical attacks.
"With chemical weapons, it starts to get so beyond the pale," Bucci said of the potential threat. "It scares the heck out of everybody, rightfully."
here we go again. more wmds. who knows whether it's true or not. the bottom line: this. is. not. our. problem.
It certainly is a difficult situation. While it seems likely that some of the chemical weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists like Hezbollah and AQ, I doubt that they will be able to use them. Without training and equipment, chemical weapons are as likely to kill the user as the target.
Â
The neighboring countries (Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Israel) will have to address this problem since the weapons are most likely to be used against them. And, if they are used against Turkey, then it becomes a NATO issue.
 @LockesChild No its not difficult at all. We tell the american people that there are WMDs in Syria and we attack Syria. Iran and Syria have a mutual defense agreement so Iran retaliates and the US has the war its been trying to provoke with Iran since the '80s.
Â
We've committed acts of war on Iran for 30 years now trying to get them to attack so the US could steal their resources. They shot down a US drone recently (Act of War). The US has murdered their scientists (Act of War). Supplied Iraq with chemicals and germs and provided Iraq with satellite reports of where Iranian troops were so they could be better gassed. (Act of War)
Â
As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) treaty, Iran has every legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, such as making nuclear fuel rods for a research reactor, and Iran is claiming that all their current work is towards this end.
Maybe it is; maybe not. But even if a nuclear bomb is being pursued, there's nothing in the NPT that provides for military action to pre-emptively prevent any nation-state from carrying out such development work. In fact, if a preemptive strike is carried out, it will be done without the benefit of any international laws or treaties that could justify the action.
Also left out of the narrative is any explanation of why it was okay for Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons or why North Korea is permitted to hold them.
The simple answer is because they don't have any oil. A quick view of the US military presence surrounding Iran, coupled with the Iraqi experience of being attacked for supposed weapons of mass destruction that did not exist or were provided by the US (nor were ever used by Iraq to threaten the US), reveals why Iran may be so motivated to develop a nuclear weapon.
 @T_BONE_WALKER  @LockesChild "In fact, if a preemptive strike is carried out, it will be done without the benefit of any international laws or treaties that could justify the action."
Which sounds a lot like what Ryan and Romney have been saying that we should do by not going to the UN...
 @T_BONE_WALKER yeah, keep drooling over those conspiracy theories.
 @LockesChild  @T_BONE_WALKER Sit back, relax and watch it all play out again before your very eyes. Then hurry back and tell us louder, OK?
Â
Is it a conspiracy that they shot down a US drone? (US act of war against Iran)
Â
Is it a conspiracy that the US has assassinated Iranian scientists? (US act of war against Iran).
Â
Is it a conspiracy that the US provided gas and germs to Iraq to be used on Iran? (US act of war).
Â
Is anything I outlined in the NPT regarding Iran's right to develop rods for a research reactor a conspiracy? Do they or do they not have the right for research under the law? Only if we say? Who are we to say after the millions that have been murdered by us just since Vietnam? Why do no other countries murder millions of people?
Â
Under the treaty, the US has no legal right to do anything just like it has chosen to avoid the issue of North Korea and Pakistan having bombs. Can you explain any of this?
Â
This coming war is for oil and oil alone just like in Iraq where we attacked them for the WMDs we gave them to use on Iranian soldiers along with satellite images of where the targets were and training in using those weapons.
Â
This is clearly just another move by US business using the US military to steal the assets of other countries time and again like they have stolen our assets and transferred them to the rich.
Â
I understand that it is very difficult for you to put people's lives before the profits of US and foreign corporations because someday you think you'll be rich from this fascism but, it wont work that way. 40% of your wealth has been transferred up to the rich already and they stand ready to take delivery of the rest soon. You'll never have anything for all your cheer leading.
Â
Why didnt the US ever dare to make these moves during the cold war?
Â
Â
Â
Â
To get em all, Nuke em from orbit, Just to make sure ! Â
I wonder if the administration is getting its inteligence information from the same people they're blaming for the cluster*** in Mogadishu? They threw the CIA under the bus and now they want to hold them up as experts once again in the area of WMD's.
I guess if you really believe the American public is stupid you can have it both ways.
 @Mej47 North Korea and Pakistan have WMDs, why not go there and attack? Who can guess why?
@T_BONE_WALKERÂ Â
When did I ever suggest attacking anyone because of real or supposed WMD's?
If they attack us we have a right and we should do everything in our power to destroy them. If they're going to cause problems for their neighbors it's their job to take care of the problem.
That has nothing to do with this administration lying to the American people.
 @Mej47 I am sorry, I didnt mean to infer that you said anything about attacking. My comment was about the reason behind the perfect tizzy the US was throwing over Iran's research while NK and Pakistan have bombs and we say nothing. You do make a valid point with regard to the CIA and this government lying.
"President Bashar Assad's embattled regime is believed to have one of the largest chemical weapons stockpiles in the world."
Â
I wonder if the American people will fall for that one again? I guess it doesn't matter because the government will simply do as its told by business. Gotta love that democracy.
 @T_BONE_WALKER it's the best democracy money can buy...
 @T_BONE_WALKER So you don't believe Syria possesses chemical weapons?
 @Funky-Munky  @T_BONE_WALKER Oh yeah, and if they do, guess where I believe they got them? Don't you believe we attacked Iraq over the chemical weapons we gave them to use on Iran? Syria is the way to Iran because no matter what we've done, we just cant get Iran to attack us because they never ever attack anyone. They have a mutual defense agreement between them. We attack Syria for "chemical weapons", Iran responds and we have the war that corporate america has wanted for some time now. Its easy peasy. We get Syria also. Its a 2 for 1 war. See how proficient predatory capitalism is? It always requires new labor to exploit and real estate for McDonalds with the country being shook down for resources like a giant vacuum. The troops are being amassed in Jordan now. Its on! These two countries wont simply comply and become US puppet states so we gotta take em out, thats all.
Â
Aint it great to be the worlds biggest out of control, war mongering, murderous empire history has ever seen?
 @LockesChild  @T_BONE_WALKER And yet the Bush administration believed a lone source known to be so unreliable that the spooks named him "Curve-ball"...and used that info to start a war.
 @LockesChild I get it. You guys cant prove your lies so you resort to name calling and such. Its funny how you guys never utter this crap in person, only on a keyboard.
 @LockesChild  @T_BONE_WALKER I believe it says so in the forth paragraph of the CBS news article. If I put it up here under fox news will you believe it?
 @LockesChild Go ahead and disprove anything you see here that you dont agree with. Provide sources or other evidence besides what you were told by faux news. K? thanks.
 @LockesChild April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. Source: Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
Â
August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. Sources: Counter Punch, October 10, 2002 and Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
Â
August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. Source: Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State
Â
September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. Source: Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
Â
September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." Source: Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
Â
December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. Source: Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
Â
July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. Source: Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
Â
July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. Source: Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
 @LockesChild May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. Source: Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002;
Â
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. Source: Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
Â
March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua.
Source: Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair.
Â
Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. Source: Washington post.com. December 30, 2002
Â
February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. Source: Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State
 @T_BONE_WALKER Boy, you certainly have a way with words. You should be out their with the other Occupy geniuses convincing people of your stupid conspiracy theories.Â
 @T_BONE_WALKER Won't waste my time reading commondreams filth. try again.
 @T_BONE_WALKER so this article doesn't support your contention that the US provided chemical weapons. Try reading for comprehension sometime...if you can
 @LockesChild Liar!
 @LockesChild http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
Â
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm
 @LockesChildhttp://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm
 @LockesChild  @T_BONE_WALKER It was Rumsfeld, now defense secretary and then a special presidential envoy, whose December 1983 meeting with Saddam Hussein led to the normalization of ties between Washington and Baghdad, according to the Washington Post. The cozy relationship was an effort to build a regional bulwark against America's enemies in Iran. The newspaper says a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items â those with military and civilian applications â that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague.
Â
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-534798.html
 @T_BONE_WALKER The USA never gave Iraq chemical weapons. Take your tinfoil hat off, it is making you drool
 @Funky-Munky  @T_BONE_WALKER Is that Biden I hear laughing?