U.S. Knew Syrians Were Preparing for Chemical-Weapons Attack

Senior administration officials say the U.S. has forestalled these attacks in the last year.

A young victim of an attack on Ghouta, Syria recuperating in a hospital.
National Journal
Matt Vasilogambros
Aug. 30, 2013, 11:04 a.m.

The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion had ad­vanced warn­ing of pos­sible chem­ic­al at­tacks by the As­sad re­gime in the last year but was able to fore­stall such an out­come through dip­lo­mat­ic ef­forts.

That’s ac­cord­ing to seni­or ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials on Fri­day, speak­ing to re­port­ers after the U.S. re­leased evid­ence of a chem­ic­al-weapons at­tack last week in the Dam­as­cus sub­urbs. One of­fi­cial said when an at­tack was im­min­ent, the U.S. de­ployed either dir­ect mes­saging to the As­sad re­gime or con­duc­ted pub­lic dip­lomacy, which in­cluded speeches from Pres­id­ent Obama.

“At vari­ous junc­tures over the last year, when we saw par­tic­u­larly con­cern­ing things, we were able to de­marche dip­lo­mat­ic­ally a vari­ety of dif­fer­ent coun­tries so that the Syr­i­an gov­ern­ment would get the mes­sage that the use of chem­ic­al weapons vi­ol­ated a fun­da­ment­al in­ter­na­tion­al norm,” the seni­or ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cial said. “That in­cludes, by the way, dir­ect mes­saging to the Syr­i­an gov­ern­ment as well.”

But this opens up ques­tions about the latest at­tack. In its pa­per present­ing evid­ence that the As­sad re­gime was in fact re­spons­ible for the at­tack, the ad­min­is­tra­tion cited in­form­a­tion out­lining the dif­fer­ent pre­par­a­tions that went in­to the al­leged at­tack.

From the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s pa­per:

We have in­tel­li­gence that leads us to as­sess that Syr­i­an chem­ic­al weapons per­son­nel — in­clud­ing per­son­nel as­sessed to be as­so­ci­ated with the SS­RC — were pre­par­ing chem­ic­al mu­ni­tions pri­or to the at­tack. In the three days pri­or to the at­tack, we col­lec­ted streams of hu­man, sig­nals and geo­spa­tial in­tel­li­gence that re­veal re­gime activ­it­ies that we as­sess were as­so­ci­ated with pre­par­a­tions for a chem­ic­al weapons at­tack.

Syr­i­an chem­ic­al weapons per­son­nel were op­er­at­ing in the Dam­as­cus sub­urb of ‘Adra from Sunday, Au­gust 18, un­til early in the morn­ing on Wed­nes­day, Au­gust 21, near an area that the re­gime uses to mix chem­ic­al weapons, in­clud­ing sar­in. On Au­gust 21, a Syr­i­an re­gime ele­ment pre­pared for a chem­ic­al weapons at­tack in the Dam­as­cus area, in­clud­ing through the util­iz­a­tion of gas masks. Our in­tel­li­gence sources in the Dam­as­cus area did not de­tect any in­dic­a­tions in the days pri­or to the at­tack that op­pos­i­tion af­fil­i­ates were plan­ning to use chem­ic­al weapons.

So, how much ad­vanced no­tice the U.S. had be­fore the gas at­tack in the Dam­as­cus sub­urbs? And would the U.S. have been able to act in time to stop it?

Asked about what the U.S. did to stop that spe­cif­ic re­sponse, the of­fi­cial said their in­tel­li­gence gath­er­ing is not al­ways con­sist­ent and timely.

“Timelines for all of our streams of in­tel­li­gence are dif­fer­ent,” a sep­ar­ate seni­or ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cial said. “And so, in some cases we can and do get something close to real time. And oth­er times, be­cause of the nature of the ac­cess or the pro­ced­ure or the pro­cess, there is some built-in delay. And, again, I don’t want to add more here what’s on our cap­ab­il­ity side, but just to say that we feel con­fid­ent that we can in fact identi­fy that those pre­par­a­tions oc­curred, that they were un­der the re­gime con­trol, and thus im­ple­men­ted from above.”

Thus, if the As­sad re­gime were to launch an­oth­er chem­ic­al-weapons at­tack, could the U.S. act in enough time to stop it? Or what about a nuc­le­ar at­tack from Ir­an or North Korea? For now, as the of­fi­cial said, it’s un­clear what sort of ad­vanced no­tice the ad­min­is­tra­tion has with these at­tacks.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4411) }}

What We're Following See More »
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
2 days ago

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.