‘UN moment’ on Syria

Ed Miliband‘s call late last night for “some kind of UN moment” before any attack on Syria may be pushing at a door the PM has already realised he has to open. The Labour leader wants some clear signal from UN inspectors that they’re convinced that there was a chemical attack in Syria and/or some attempt to get UN backing for an attack. These pose problems for the PM as the inspectors may not jump to the allies’ timetable (not least because they’re hampered by Assad‘s regime on the ground in Syria) and the UN Security Council will not pass a motion supporting action against Syria because the Russians would use their veto.

But the “UN moment” demand won’t come as a complete surprise to No. 10 and they may well have been under similar pressure from Nick Clegg. The “Iraq Drag” is everywhere in this saga, even if supporters of an attack against Syria insist the cases are utterly different. In their latest phone chat last night, President Obama and David Cameron touched on just that and the difference between Saddam denying stockpiles and the Syrians having long advertised and, the two leaders are convinced, now blatantly used chemical weapons. This morning, the National Security Council will decide what form Britain’s participation in a US-led attack on Syrian military targets should take. That will then go to tomorrow morning’s Cabinet for approval but dissent is not expected. The public opinion polls may be hostile to any kind of military action against Syria but I understand that the prime minister has been heartened to find EU allies he’s been phoning pretty supportive.

When David Cameron spoke yesterday of targets that “deter and degrade the future use of chemical weapons” he was choosing his words with legalistic care.  As many have noted, the phrase on targetting does not mean that the US, the UK and France will try to hit chemical weapons stockpiles. That would risk leakage. The intention is more likely to be to hit at the transport infrastructure and military forces linked to chemical weapons. Whitehall sources emphasise this is very much not “shock and awe” type bombing but something narrower and more short-term and not regime threatening. It would leave the Assad regime still in control of an overwhelming amount of military hardware, it’s claimed.

What about escalation?

What if retaliation by Syria or Syrian proxy forces means this conflict escalates? This has been part of the discussion in the run-up to the NSC meeting. Some in government take the view that the Syrian regime is in an existential struggle with rebels in its own country. It cannot afford to start a second front against the world’s most powerful military. And, they argue, the Syrians have shown a capacity to turn the cheek before when Israel struck the nuclear reactor in Syria. Others are less sanguine and fear retaliation somewhere in the Middle East.

The Times claims that a sarin-type agent was used in retaliation for an attempted assassination of President Assad. But it sounds like Whitehall is not wholly sure of this. Some might argue that one of the holes in the government analysis of the chemical attacks is that intelligence doesn’t have a clear view of the motive. Why would the Assad regime expose itself to attack by crossing the chemical weapons red-line? Chemical weapons were retained as the ultimate deterrent, meant to put off an Israeli invasion. It could be that the Syrian forces under a particularly hot-headed commander lacked the personnel or will to engage in urban street fighting and so were using these chemical agents to effect house clearance.

Read more from Channel 4 News on Syria
Alex Thomson on the Syria ‘blitz’: behind the bombs
In the shadow of chemical weapons: an interactive map
Follow @GaryGibbonBlog on Twitter