Does Syria Have Chemical Weapons?

A volley of accusations


evidence according to syria

There's a fresh round of allegations of chemical weapons in Syria's two-year-long civil war, with the Syrian government and Syrian rebels in Aleppo accusing each other of using the same in the region.  The White House says there's no evidence the rebels are using chemical weapons, while Russia said the rebels have. Israel said it was "apparently clear" the Syrian government had used chemical weapons, and  Syria's main rebel group is demanding an investigation. The Syrian regime claimed in January that it was the rebels who could turn to chemical weapons in the conflict.

President Obama warned Syria about the use of chemical weapons last summer, and maintains there's no reason to think Syria is using chemical weapons, even as the Pentagon has previously planned how a pre-emptive strike on Syria's chemical weapons stockpile might look.  Israel may have hit a chemical weapons site in January, and last month U.S. intelligence sources suggested the Syrian regime was consolidating its chemical weapons stockpile. A Syrian defector said the regime would likely only use chemical weapons as a "last resort."

France has cited the potential use of chemical weapons as a reason to intervene in Syria since at least last summer. One theory has Syria receiving all these chemical weapons in advance of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, hinged on Iraq's possession of WMDs. Ten years ago France wouldn't follow to where the U.S. was leading in Iraq, now some ask whether the U.S. is following where France is leading on Syria.

NEXT: Court Strikes Down Casket Licensing Regulations in Louisiana

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Who fucking cares? Do we really need to plan another invasion based on the type of weapon a foreign country stockpiles?

  2. same ol’ song, same ol’ dance routine.


  3. What difference, at this point, does it make?

  4. I thought the Frogs were busy in their other former colony – Mali – right now?

    1. Dunno.
      Did they hitch a ride on a passing C5A? Find gas money under the sofa cushions? Cut a week from they vacation schedule to maybe afford defense?

      1. “Cut a week from they vacation schedule”


  5. Let’s say they do; why would the interests of the US be affected in any way? Now, if I were an Israeli, I would be very interested.

    1. I think that a bunch of chemical weapons turned lose in the middle east would be of concern if for no other reason that someone might decide to take said weapons and use them on the US.

      1. “someone might decide to take said weapons and use them on the US.”

        Then it becomes of interest. Until that hypothetical is realized, forget it.

        1. No, then it becomes a national disaster. It is a little bit late to get concerned after they have already gassed you. The government has an obligation to prevent that from happening in the first place.

      2. If we get a hint that someone’s trying to do that, then take them out.

        Until then, though, it’s really not my problem if one group of medieval barbaric assholes wants to gas another group of medieval barbaric assholes to death. I have no dog in their fight; the entirety of southeast Asia could sink into the ocean for all I care.

        1. Southwest. Southwest Asia.

  6. I bet they have mobile bioweapon labs as well.

    1. And some yellowcake uranium.

  7. last month U.S. intelligence sources suggested the Syrian regime was consolidating its chemical weapons stockpile.

    That sounds really stupid to me. “Let’s put all our chemical weapons in one place so that it will be easier to destroy them in one raid.”

    1. Missing is the part where the stockpile is surrounded with the lastest offerings from the spring Russian SAM catalog.

    2. Well you can either concentrate, and thus focus all your security on the one Big Depot, or disperse it, perhaps even disperse it radically, and count on the sheer number of spots to dilute any impact.

      If they don’t concentrate it, the rebels might get their hands on some. And the Islamist motherfuckers fighting Assad will use it if they can. Better to have it destroyed then turned against you. WMDs are just the kind of force multiplier the rebels need.

  8. The only solution is to kill far more Syrians than all the chemical weapons Assad has could ever possibly kill.

  9. A little factoid, the US is actually in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention that it signed and ratified. It was suppose to destroy all chemical weapons prior to 22 April 2012 but still has around 3,000 tons of it.

    Syria has neither signed nor ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.

    1. Shits given: 0.

      1. Maybe you will give a shit over the fact that the reason for being in violation is that instead of burning the remaining chemicals like was done with most of the stockpile, the US government is going to use a totally different method which they had not done before and this is both way over budget and schedule.

        So if you are a US taxpayer you are paying for another US government boondoggle.

  10. Didn’t the Israelis bomb the crap out of a Syrian weapons site a year or so ago? Was that supposed to be nuke, chemical, or biological?

    There were lots of stories about Saddam’s NBC materials were trucked into Syria 10 years ago.

  11. Lets go smack it up man. Wow.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.