WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, as part of its examination of possible responses to obtaining conclusive proof that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has used chemical weapons, is considering military options with allies that include attacking Syria’s antiaircraft systems, military aircraft and some of its missile fleet, according to senior officials from several countries.
Those officials say that attacking the chemical stockpiles directly has been all but ruled out. “You could cause exactly the disaster you are trying to prevent,” a senior Israeli military official said in an interview last week in Tel Aviv.
But by attacking Mr. Assad’s main delivery systems, the officials say, they would curtail his ability to transport those weapons any significant distance. “This wouldn’t stop him from using it on a village, or just releasing it on the ground, or handing something to Hezbollah,” said one European official who has been involved in the conversations. “But it would limit the damage greatly.”
The topic was alluded to on Thursday, when Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel met with his British counterpart and talked about “the need for new options” if Mr. Assad uses his chemical arsenal, the officials said. But while the military has been developing and refining options for the White House for months, the discussion appears to have taken a new turn, officials say, as they struggle to determine whether the suspected use of sarin gas near Aleppo and Damascus last month was a prelude to greater use of such weapons.
Asked about the planning, a senior administration official said Friday that “there are a lot of options on the table, and they’re generally carrying equal weight at the moment.”
He declined to discuss the others, though Mr. Hagel talked on Thursday about arming rebel groups, something Mr. Obama said on Friday he was unwilling to do. “As a general rule, I don’t rule things out as commander in chief because circumstances change,” the president said at a news conference in San José, Costa Rica, where he was meeting with Latin American leaders. He added that he did not forsee a situation in which “American boots on the ground in Syria would not only be good for America but also would be good for Syria.”
Mr. Obama noted that he had consulted with leaders in the Mid East who “agree with that assessment.”
So far, Mr. Obama has been reluctant to get involved in the Syrian conflict. He has ruled out placing American forces on the ground, and when asked whether recent evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria crossed the “red line” he set in August, Mr. Obama described a lengthy series of questions he would need to have answered — including when and how chemical weapons were used — before he would take action. Even then, he made clear, he may choose something well short of military action.
By Israeli estimates, Syria has 15 to 20 major chemical weapons sites, many near airfields that would make transport by plane relatively easy. Military planners say they would want to avoid hitting the chemicals for fear of creating toxic sites that could injure or kill civilians.
Ideally, one American commander said, the stockpiles would be surrounded, protected and then incinerated, much as the United States has done with its chemical arsenal. But that takes years, and as one official said, “We don’t have years, and we can’t keep troops there.”
That is why attacking the delivery systems seems like the next best option to many in the administration. Israel was believed to be behind an attack on some Syrian missiles in February as they were about to be transported, presumably to Hezbollah. On Wednesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Israeli lawmakers that a Hezbollah missile attack, using chemical weapons, was one of his chief concerns.
If Mr. Obama and his allies proceeded with an attack on air defenses, missiles and the Syrian Air Force, they would most likely use Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from ships in the eastern Mediterranean and fighter jets that might be able to launch missiles without entering Syrian airspace. But it is unclear how effective those would be.
Reporting was contributed by Eric Schmitt from Washington; Alan Cowell from Paris; Hania Mourtada and Hwaida Saad from Beirut, Lebanon; Rick Gladstone from New York; and Michael D. Shear from San José, Costa Rica.
Those officials say that attacking the chemical stockpiles directly has been all but ruled out. “You could cause exactly the disaster you are trying to prevent,” a senior Israeli military official said in an interview last week in Tel Aviv.
But by attacking Mr. Assad’s main delivery systems, the officials say, they would curtail his ability to transport those weapons any significant distance. “This wouldn’t stop him from using it on a village, or just releasing it on the ground, or handing something to Hezbollah,” said one European official who has been involved in the conversations. “But it would limit the damage greatly.”
The topic was alluded to on Thursday, when Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel met with his British counterpart and talked about “the need for new options” if Mr. Assad uses his chemical arsenal, the officials said. But while the military has been developing and refining options for the White House for months, the discussion appears to have taken a new turn, officials say, as they struggle to determine whether the suspected use of sarin gas near Aleppo and Damascus last month was a prelude to greater use of such weapons.
Asked about the planning, a senior administration official said Friday that “there are a lot of options on the table, and they’re generally carrying equal weight at the moment.”
He declined to discuss the others, though Mr. Hagel talked on Thursday about arming rebel groups, something Mr. Obama said on Friday he was unwilling to do. “As a general rule, I don’t rule things out as commander in chief because circumstances change,” the president said at a news conference in San José, Costa Rica, where he was meeting with Latin American leaders. He added that he did not forsee a situation in which “American boots on the ground in Syria would not only be good for America but also would be good for Syria.”
Mr. Obama noted that he had consulted with leaders in the Mid East who “agree with that assessment.”
So far, Mr. Obama has been reluctant to get involved in the Syrian conflict. He has ruled out placing American forces on the ground, and when asked whether recent evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria crossed the “red line” he set in August, Mr. Obama described a lengthy series of questions he would need to have answered — including when and how chemical weapons were used — before he would take action. Even then, he made clear, he may choose something well short of military action.
By Israeli estimates, Syria has 15 to 20 major chemical weapons sites, many near airfields that would make transport by plane relatively easy. Military planners say they would want to avoid hitting the chemicals for fear of creating toxic sites that could injure or kill civilians.
Ideally, one American commander said, the stockpiles would be surrounded, protected and then incinerated, much as the United States has done with its chemical arsenal. But that takes years, and as one official said, “We don’t have years, and we can’t keep troops there.”
That is why attacking the delivery systems seems like the next best option to many in the administration. Israel was believed to be behind an attack on some Syrian missiles in February as they were about to be transported, presumably to Hezbollah. On Wednesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Israeli lawmakers that a Hezbollah missile attack, using chemical weapons, was one of his chief concerns.
If Mr. Obama and his allies proceeded with an attack on air defenses, missiles and the Syrian Air Force, they would most likely use Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from ships in the eastern Mediterranean and fighter jets that might be able to launch missiles without entering Syrian airspace. But it is unclear how effective those would be.
Reporting was contributed by Eric Schmitt from Washington; Alan Cowell from Paris; Hania Mourtada and Hwaida Saad from Beirut, Lebanon; Rick Gladstone from New York; and Michael D. Shear from San José, Costa Rica.