text:
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Pnssib!c U.5.
Intcrvcntinn in 5yria: Issucs Inr
Jcrcmy M. 5harp, Cnnrdinatnr
S¡eciaIisl in MiddIe Iaslern Affairs
Christnphcr M. B!anchard, Cnnrdinatnr
S¡eciaIisl in MiddIe Iaslern Affairs
Se¡lember 3, 2013
Cnngrcssinna! Rcscarch 5crvicc
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-&
Reports oI a mass casualty chemical weapons attack in the suburbs oI Damascus are reshaping
the long-running and contentious debate over possible U.S. intervention in Syria`s bloody civil
war. Obama Administration oIIicials and some Ioreign governments believe that on August 21,
2013, Iorces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al Asad attacked opposition-controlled areas in the
suburbs oI the capital with chemical weapons, killing hundreds oI civilians, including women and
children. The Syrian government has denied the accusations categorically and blames the
opposition Ior the attack. United Nations inspectors who were in Syria to investigate other alleged
chemical weapons attacks collected and are analyzing inIormation related to the incident. Varying
accounts suggest that several hundred to more than 1,000 people were killed Irom exposure to a
poisonous gas, with symptoms consistent with exposure to the nerve agent sarin.
Possible punitive U.S. military action against the Asad regime is now the subject oI intense
debate, amid the broader ongoing discussion oI U.S. policy toward the Syrian civil war and its
regional consequences. The August 21
incident is the latest in a string oI reported instances where
Syrian Iorces appear to have used chemical weapons despite President Obama`s prior statement
that the transIer or use oI chemical weapons is 'a red line¨ that would 'change his calculus.¨ The
President and senior members oI his Administration have argued that the United States has a
national security interest in ensuring that 'when countries break international norms on chemical
weapons they are held accountable.¨ At the same time, President Obama still maintains that
extensive, sustained U.S. military intervention to shape the outcome oI Syria`s civil conIlict is
undesirable. Prior to the August 21 incident, U.S. military leaders had outlined options to
accomplish a range oI U.S. objectives, while warning that U.S. military involvement 'cannot
resolve the underlying and historic ethnic, religious and tribal issues that are Iueling this conIlict.¨
Members oI Congress have expressed a broad range oI views on the question oI an immediate
U.S. military response, with some expressing support Ior military action and others expressing
opposition or questioning how a military response would advance U.S. policy goals in Syria and
beyond. For more than two years, many Members oI Congress have debated the potential rewards
and unintended consequences oI deeper U.S. involvement in Syria. Some Members have
expressed concern that the Administration`s policy oI providing support to the Iractured Syrian
opposition could empower anti-American extremist groups, while others have warned that Iailure
to back moderate Iorces in Syria could prolong the conIlict and create opportunity Ior extremists.
As Members oI Congress consider the merits oI possible military intervention in Syria, they also
are reengaging in long-standing discussions about the proper role Ior Congress in authorizing and
Iunding U.S. military action abroad and the eIIicacy oI the use oI Iorce in shaping global events
or deterring dictatorships Irom committing atrocities. This report poses and attempts to provide
answers to a number oI policy questions Ior lawmakers grappling with these short- and long-term
issues. For additional background on Syria, see the Iollowing CRS Reports: CRS Report
RL33487, Armed Conflict in Svria. U.S. and International Response, by Jeremy M. Sharp and
Christopher M. Blanchard, CRS Report R42848, Svrias Chemical Weapons. Issues for Congress,
coordinated by Mary Beth D. Nikitin, and CRS Report R43119, Svria. Overview of the
Humanitarian Response, by Rhoda Margesson and Susan G. Chesser.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-&
Update as oI September 3, 2013 ...................................................................................................... 1
Assessment ...................................................................................................................................... 2
ConIlict Update ................................................................................................................................ 5
Issues Ior Congress .......................................................................................................................... 8
Chemical Weapons Issues .......................................................................................................... 8
War Powers .............................................................................................................................. 12
Cost and Budgetary Resources Ior Intervention ...................................................................... 13
Military Planning ..................................................................................................................... 17
U.S. Aid to the Opposition ...................................................................................................... 19
Arming the Syrian Opposition .......................................................................................... 19
Non-Lethal Aid to the Opposition and Economic Sanctions against the Regime ............. 20
U.S. Humanitarian Response ................................................................................................... 23
International Response ................................................................................................................... 24
The United Nations Security Council ...................................................................................... 24
Russia ...................................................................................................................................... 24
China ....................................................................................................................................... 26
European and NATO Perspectives .......................................................................................... 27
United Kingdom ................................................................................................................ 27
France ................................................................................................................................ 28
Germany ............................................................................................................................ 29
European Union................................................................................................................. 30
Turkey ............................................................................................................................... 30
Arab States ............................................................................................................................... 31
Israel and Its Concern Ior Potential Retaliation ....................................................................... 31
Outlook .......................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 1. U.S. Intelligence Community Map oI August 21, 2013 Incident ..................................... 4
Figure 2. Syria ConIlict Map ........................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Possible Ranges oI Rockets and Missiles Irom Hezbollah and Gaza-Based
Militants ...................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 4. Potential Ranges oI Syrian SCUD Missiles Vis-a-vis Israel .......................................... 35
Author Contact InIormation........................................................................................................... 37
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 1
Updatc as nI 5cptcmbcr 3, 2013
On August 30, the Obama Administration presented intelligence analysis suggesting that the
Syrian government was responsible Ior an August 21 chemical weapons attack against civilians in
rebel-held areas oI the suburbs oI Damascus. The Syrian government continues to categorically
deny any responsibility Ior any chemical weapons attack.
President Obama has called the Syrian government`s reported use oI chemical weapons 'an
assault on human dignity¨ that 'presents a serious danger to our national security.¨
He has
requested that Congress authorize the use oI Iorce Ior military operations 'against Syrian regime
targets¨ to 'hold the Assad regime accountable Ior their use oI chemical weapons, deter this kind
oI behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.¨ According to the president, such military
operations would be 'limited in duration and scope¨ and 'would not put boots on the ground.¨
A draIt resolution authorizing the use oI Iorce submitted to Congress by the White House would
authorize the president:
to use the Armed Forces oI the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in connection with the use oI chemical weapons or other weapons oI mass
destruction in the conIlict in Syria in order to
(1) prevent or deter the use or proliIeration (including the transIer to terrorist groups or other
state or non-state actors), within, to or Irom Syria, oI any weapons oI mass destruction,
including chemical or biological weapons or components oI or materials used in such
weapons; or
(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such
Several lawmakers reportedly are seeking to amend or replace the proposed authorization, citing
concerns that the proposed text may not suIIiciently limit the scope or duration oI any potential
military response.
In Syria, the brutal civil war continues, even as Syrian government Iorces are reported to be
taking measures to prepare Ior an expected U.S.-led military operation against them. President
Bashar al Asad has stated that the United States and others accusing it oI carrying out chemical
weapons strikes have not presented any evidence to support their allegations and he has warned
that external military intervention in Syria`s civil war risks igniting a regional conIlict. Anecdotal
reports Irom Syrian civilians and opposition Iigures suggest that the Syrian armed Iorces have
relocated key equipment and personnel in recent days, and some reports allege that the Syrian
government has moved prisoners onto Iacilities expected to be targeted in order to serve as
human shields. Syrian oIIicials have requested that the United Nations Security Council act to
prevent aggression against Syria. Iranian Revolutionary Guard Commander Major General
Statement by President Barack Obama, White House, August 31, 2013.
CNN, Text oI draIt legislation submitted by Obama to Congress, August 31, 2013.
See Ior example, Politico, 'Patrick Leahy: New Syria draIt text coming,¨ September 1, 2013; and, Niels Lesniewski,
'Syria War Resolution Will Be Narrowed, Lawmakers Say,¨ Roll Call - #WGDB Blog, September 1, 2013.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 2
Mohammed Ali JaIari has stated that, 'The U.S. imagination about limited military intervention
in Syria is merely an illusion, as reactions will be coming Irom beyond Syria`s borders.¨
Russian and Chinese oIIicials remain opposed to the U.S. proposal Ior punitive military strikes,
while the Arab League has modiIied its original position insisting on United Nations (UN)
Security Council action to call Ior the Security Council and the international community to 'take
the deterrent and necessary measures against the culprits oI this crime Ior which the Syrian
regime bears responsibility.¨ United Kingdom leaders state they have no intention oI seeking new
authorization Irom Parliament to participate in any international military operation Iollowing
Parliament`s rejection oI a measure to do so last week. French government oIIicials continue to
support calls Ior punitive action and presented supporting intelligence on September 2 to French
legislators concerning what they describe as 'the massive use oI chemical agents¨ by Syrian
government Iorces.
U.S. military assets continue to gather in the vicinity oI Syria. As oI September 2, Iive guided
missile destroyers were reported to be deployed in the eastern Mediterranean Sea: the USS Stout,
USS Gravely, USS Mahan, USS Barry, and USS Ramage. The USS San Antonio carrying Iorces
Irom the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit and unspeciIied attack submarines also were reported to
be nearby. The USS Kearsarge and the USS Nimitz aircraIt carrier strike group were reported to
be deploying westward toward the Red Sea.
In a series oI press appearances on September 1, Secretary oI State John Kerry expressed
conIidence that Congress would approve an authorization Ior the use oI military Iorce. In
announcing his decision on August 31, President Obama stated, 'I'm comIortable going Iorward
without the approval oI a United Nations Security Council that, so Iar, has been completely
paralyzed and unwilling to hold Asad accountable.¨ President Obama also said, 'I believe I have
the authority to carry out this military action without speciIic congressional authorization.¨
The war in Syria and the debate over possible punitive U.S. military action against the Asad
regime Ior its alleged use oI chemical weapons pose a uniquely challenging series oI questions
Ior policy makers. The overarching questions remain how to deIine, prioritize, and secure the
core interests oI the United States with regard to Syria`s complex civil war. The immediate
questions are whether and how best to respond to the apparent use oI chemical weapons in Syria
and how such a response might aIIect U.S. interests and standing regionally and globally. In
weighing these questions, many Members oI Congress and Administration oIIicials are seeking
both to protect concrete U.S. national security interests and to preserve abstract international
security principles that may serve those interests.
A mass casualty chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21
was the latest
and most deadly oI a string oI reported instances where Syrian Iorces allegedly have used
chemical weapons despite President Obama`s prior statement that the transIer or use oI chemical
weapons is 'a red line¨ that would 'change his calculus.¨ The president and senior members oI
his Administration have argued that the United States has a national security interest in ensuring
Fars News Agency, 'IRGC Commander: US Possible Military Aggression against Syria to Face Tough Int`l
Reaction,¨ August 31, 2013.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 3
that 'when countries break international norms on chemical weapons they are held accountable.¨
Administration oIIicials and some observers believe that by Iailing to respond aIter setting out a
so-called 'red line,¨ the United States would risk not only undermining any international norms
against the use oI such weapons but would risk undermining its own credibility.
By his own account, President Obama believes that extensive, sustained U.S. military
intervention to shape the outcome oI Syria`s civil conIlict is undesirable. Instead, the Obama
Administration has worked with Congress to increase U.S. assistance to non-radical elements oI
the opposition. In response to previous instances oI alleged chemical weapons use, the
Administration reportedly notiIied Congress in July 2012 oI its intent to begin covert U.S. arming
oI select groups.
On August 31, the President stated his conclusion that the United States should
respond to alleged Syrian chemical weapons use with limited militarily strikes.
Administration oIIicials have cited a number oI reasons Ior their skepticism oI direct military
involvement to shiIt the balance oI power in the underlying conIlict, including Iears oI
exacerbating the violence; inviting greater regional spillover or intervention; or opening a power
vacuum that could beneIit extremists. Other Ioreign policy priorities also have inIluenced the
Administration`s position, such as a desire to maintain limited international consensus on Iran`s
nuclear program and concern that sectarian and strategic competition in Syria could ignite a
regional conIlict and threaten U.S. allies and security interests. While condemning Asad as a thug
and a murderer and aiding some oI his adversaries, U.S. oIIicials have continued to stress the
need Ior a negotiated political solution to the conIlict in the hopes oI keeping the Syrian state
intact, securing its chemical weapon stockpiles and borders, and combating extremist groups now
active there.
Some critics have argued that the potential risks that even a limited military response could pose
to these objectives outweigh the potential beneIits to the United States oI reasserting an
international standard or being seen to have reliably Iollowed through on a commitment to act.
These arguments suggest that iI a military strike makes the political solution desired by U.S.
oIIicials less likely, then the destabilizing conIlict could continue or worsen. Similarly, this line oI
argument suggests that iI military operations were to dramatically degrade remaining state
authoritywhether intentionally or unintentionallythen undesired outcomes with regard to
terrorism, proliIeration, or mass atrocities could occur.
Still other critics oI the Administration, including some Members oI Congress, charge that U.S.
hesitation to intervene militarily to protect Syrian civilians and/or help oust the Asad government
has unnecessarily prolonged the Iighting. Over time, these critics argue, the costs oI inaction have
grown intolerably as humanitarian situation has deteriorated, violent extremist groups have seized
the initiative, and Syria`s neighbors, including several U.S. partners, have been overwhelmed by
reIugees and threatened with violence. Others have argued that by Iailing to halt the Iighting in
Syria, the United States and others are exacerbating already volatile Sunni-Shiite sectarian
tensions throughout Middle East, which poses risks to other strategically important countries.
Finally, some critics argue that U.S. global credibility is being diminished by Asad`s reluctance to
step down or end abuses oI civilians despite U.S. demands.
Sorting through these competing perspectives and prescriptions now Ialls to Members oI
Congress as they reconvene to consider the president`s proposed course oI action, his request that
'Divided Over Arming Syrian Rebels, Congress Declines to Block Obama's Plan,¨ CQ News, July 23, 2013.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 4
Congress authorize the use oI Iorce, and the Iuture oI U.S. policy with regard to the conIlict in
Syria and its regional consequences.
!"#$%& () *)+) ,-.&//"#&-0& 1233$-".4 567 28 9$#$:. ;(< ;=(> ,-0"?&-.
(releaseo to tbe publlc on August 30, 2013)
+2$%0&@ U.S. Government.
5ummary nI U.5. Intc!!igcncc nn August 21 Incidcnt
An unclassiIied summary oI the U.S. intelligence community`s assessment released by the White
House concludes, among other things, that:
! The United States Government assesses with high conIidence that the Syrian
government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on
August 21, 2013.
! A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were
killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children.
! The U.S. intelligence community has intelligence that leads it to assess that
Syrian chemical weapons personnel including personnel assessed to be
associated with the Syrian ScientiIic Studies and Research Center (SSRC); the
entity responsible Ior Syria`s chemical weapons program were preparing
chemical munitions prior to the attack.
Government Assessment oI the Syrian Government`s Use oI Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 5
! The U.S. intelligence community assesses that that the opposition has not used
chemical weapons and the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack
on August 21 is highly unlikely.
! Satellite detections corroborate that attacks Irom a regime-controlled area struck
neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred including KaIr
Batna, Jawbar, 'Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu'addamiyah (see !"#$%& ( above).
On September 1, Secretary oI State John Kerry Iurther stated that tests oI blood and hair samples
Irom Syrian Iirst responders obtained by the United States indicated exposure to the nerve agent
UN weapons inspectors have departed Syria, and UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon has requested that
the team 'expedite the mission's analysis oI the samples and inIormation it had obtained without
jeopardizing the scientiIic timelines required Ior accurate analysis, and to report the results to him
as soon as possible.¨
CnnI!ict Updatc
The August 21 incident occurred as the popular-uprising-turned-armed-rebellion in Syria is in its
third year and has devolved into a bloody struggle oI attrition between the government and a
diverse array oI opposition militias. Over the course oI Syria`s civil war, momentum has shiIted
between government and rebel Iorces. Support provided by Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah Iighters
appears to have helped the Asad regime wrest the initiative Irom the opposition near the city oI
Homs and to launch counteroIIensives on the outskirts oI the capital. The August 21 attack
appears to have been part oI a Iierce and ongoing Syrian military bombardment oI rebel-held
eastern suburbs oI Damascus.
Various opposition Iorces control areas oI northwestern, eastern, and southern Syria (see !"#$%& )
below). In areas near the northern city oI Aleppo, diverse rebel Iorces have announced limited
tactical successes in recent weeks, including the Iall oI a key military air base.
According to
close observers oI the conIlict, extremist militia groups are 'concentrating their eIIorts on
consolidating control in the northern, rebel-held areas oI the country,¨
while they and others
among the range oI 'extraordinarily Iractured¨
militia groups continue to battle regime Iorces
Ior contested areas. Reportedly, the Supreme Military Council (SMC) to which the United States
has provided aid 'is still Iar Irom a Iunctioning rebel leadership.¨
European press reporting
contends that oIIensives by rebels in northern Syria and by Ioreign trained rebels in the vicinity oI
Damascus have caused serious alarm among regime leaders since mid-August.
UN News Center, 'Syria: samples collected at site oI alleged chemical weapons use to be sent to labs tomorrow
UN,¨ September 1, 2013.
'In Syria, Seized Weapons Caches boost Rebels` Hopes aIter Weeks oI Setbacks,¨ Washington Post, August 21,
Elizabeth O'Bagy, 'On the Front Lines oI Syria's Civil War,¨ Wall Street Journal, August 30, 2013.
Aron Lund, 'The Non-State Militant Landscape in Syria,¨ United States Military Academy Combatting Terrorism
Center (CTC) Sentinel, August 27, 2013.
Christoph Reuter and Holger Stark, 'Chemical Watershed: Momentum ShiIts again in Syrian Civil War,¨ Der
Spiegel, September 2, 2013; and Isabelle Lasserre, 'Syrie : l'operation anti-Assad a commence,¨ Le Figaro (France),
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 6
!"#$%& ;) +4%"6 12-8/"0. 567
As ot September 1, 2013
+2$%0&@ !"# %&"'(") (Germany) aoapteo trom 88C News ano Syrla Neeos Assessment Project oata.
United Nations oIIicials cite estimates that over 100,000 Syrians have been killed in the conIlict.
As many as 4.25 million Syrians have been displaced inside the country and more than 2 million
Syrian reIugees are in neighboring countries. The Syrian conIlict and the humanitarian crisis it
has created have deepened the economic and political challenges Iacing the region and
exacerbated sectarian tensions and violence, particularly in Iraq and Lebanon. To date, the United
States has provided over $1 billion in humanitarian aid in Syria and neighboring countries, with
U.N. appeals seeking over $4 billion in assistance.
President Obama called Ior Syrian President Bashar al Asad`s resignation in August 2011, but, as
noted above, the Obama Administration has rejected calls Ior more direct U.S. intervention in
Syria. Nevertheless, the intensiIying regional costs oI the Syrian crisis and reports oI chemical
weapons use by Syrian government Iorces have placed increasing pressure on the Obama
Administration to respond. Secretary Kerry has signaled that the Administration may seek to
Iurther augment U.S. support to some opposition elements in parallel with any limited military
operations Iocused on chemical weapons.
August 22, 2013.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 7
In the 113
Congress, some Members have introduced proposed legislation that would authorize
expanded assistance to the opposition. H.R. 1327, the Free Syria Act oI 2013, would, among
other things, authorize the President, under certain conditions and with various reporting and
certiIication requirements, to supply nonlethal and/or lethal support to Syrian opposition groups.
S. 960, the Syria Transition Support Act oI 2013, would, among other things, authorize the
President, notwithstanding any other provision oI law that restricts assistance to Syria, to provide
assistance, including deIense articles, deIense services, and training to vetted opposition Iorces.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved S. 960 as amended by a 15-3 vote in May
Prnpnscd Authnrizatinn Inr thc Usc nI Mi!itary Fnrcc
As described above, a draIt resolution authorizing the use oI Iorce submitted to Congress by the
White House would authorize the president:
to use the Armed Forces oI the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in connection with the use oI chemical weapons or other weapons oI mass
destruction in the conIlict in Syria in order to
(1) prevent or deter the use or proliIeration (including the transIer to terrorist groups or other
state or non-state actors), within, to or Irom Syria, oI any weapons oI mass destruction,
including chemical or biological weapons or components oI or materials used in such
weapons; or
(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such
Current debate Iocuses on the possible ramiIications oI such an authorization, whether in this
Iorm or as amended. Key subjects oI debate include the purpose oI any such authorization,
potential targets oI military Iorce, the type oI Iorce that may be employed, the potential duration
oI military operations, and the resources available Ior such operations.
Legal scholars have continually compared and contrasted congressional authorizations oI the use
oI Iorce over time, and generally categorize them in terms oI their relative limits on or
permissiveness oI executive authority and action. According to one study:
The primary diIIerences between limited and broad authorizations are as Iollows: In limited
authorizations, Congress restricts the resources and methods oI Iorce that the President can
employ, sometimes expressly restricts targets, identiIies relatively narrow purposes Ior the
use oI Iorce, and sometimes imposes time limits or procedural restrictions. In broad
authorizations, Congress imposes Iew iI any limits on resources or methods, does not restrict
targets other than to identiIy an enemy, invokes relatively broad purposes, and generally
imposes Iew iI any timing or procedural restrictions.
Some argue, however, that provisions attempting to circumscribe the President`s ability to
conduct military operations improperly interIere with the President`s commander-in-chieI powers
under Article II oI the Constitution. Past cases suggest that limits on appropriations may provide
Curtis A. Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith, 'Congressional Authorization and the War on Terrorism,¨ Harvard Law
Review, Volume 118, Number 7, May 2005, p. 2078.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 8
the most direct and eIIective means oI asserting congressional control over military operations.
For CRS analysis oI these questions, see 'War Powers¨ below and CRS Report R41989,
Congressional Authoritv to Limit Militarv Operations, by JenniIer K. Elsea, Michael John Garcia,
and Thomas J. Nicola, and CRS Report RL31133, Declarations of War and Authori:ations for the
Use of Militarv Force. Historical Background and Legal Implications, by JenniIer K. Elsea and
Matthew C. Weed.
With regard to Syria, relevant matters Ior consideration may include whether or not allies oI the
Syrian government, such as Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah, or other non-state actors who may gain
access to chemical or biological weapons or components are intended as potential targets oI U.S.
military action and iI so, what the implications oI conIlict with those actors might be. The costs
and duration oI any potential operation are relevant, as well as the potential Ior retaliatory action
by the Syrian government and its supporters that could threaten allies to whom the United States
has made various security commitments including Turkey, Jordan, and Israel.
Congress also may wish to assess criteria Ior measuring the success oI any speciIic planned
action and how such action Iits with broader U.S. regional and international policy goals - Ior
example iI limited strikes Iail to deter or prevent the use or proliIeration oI chemical weapons in
Syria, will the United States pursue continued or wider military action? Similarly, iI the Syrian
government reIrains Irom Iurther use oI chemical weapons but continues indiscriminate attacks
on rebel held areas using conventional weaponry, will a limited U.S. military action be deemed
Issucs Inr Cnngrcss
Chcmica! Wcapnns Issucs
On the night oI August 21, an alleged chemical weapons attack killed hundreds in a neighborhood
on the outskirts oI Damascus. II conIirmed, this would be the largest number oI casualties Irom a
chemical weapons attack in this conIlict to date. The United States, the United Kingdom and
France have issued statements saying that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in the
attack. The White House released a detailed intelligence assessment on August 30.
As with past
cases oI alleged chemical weapons use in Syria this year, the Syrian government denied that it
had conducted the attack and blamed opposition groups. Most experts observing the victims oI
the attack say that symptoms are consistent with the use oI the nerve agent sarin, a type oI
chemical weapon in Syria`s large arsenal.
The August 30, 2013, White House statement said that the U.S. intelligence community assesses
that the Asad regime used a nerve agent in a 'large-scale coordinated rocket and artillery attack,¨
which killed approximately 1,429 people. It also said that the opposition has not used chemical
weapons. The U.S. government assesses that the Asad regime has used chemical weapons,
including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last
Prepared by Mary Beth D. Nikitin, Specialist in NonproliIeration, September 3, 2013.
'Government Assessment oI the Syrian Government`s Use oI Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013,¨ The White
House, August 30, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-oIIice/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 9
year. These assessments say that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons 'primarily to
gain the upper hand or break a stalemate in areas where it has struggled to seize and hold
strategically valuable territory.¨
President Obama and other world leaders have said that the use oI chemical weapons against the
civilian population would be met with consequences, which could include the use oI military
Iorce. In statements reacting to alleged chemical weapons incidents in Syria, U.S. oIIicials have
reIerred to several distinct reasons why the use oI chemical weapons by the Syrian government
raises Iundamental concerns Ior the United States:
! the unacceptability oI any use oI chemical weapons, given the large international
consensus that views chemical weapons as having inherently malicious qualities;
! the targeting oI a civilian population, especially in large numbers, regardless oI
the weapons employed;
! the potential Ior the proliIeration oI chemical weapons to other parties, such as
those hostile to the United States;
! the potential ramiIications oI escalated or expanded violence in Syria, including
the loss oI control oI chemical weapons and/or their use on neighboring countries
and U.S. interests in the region.
These concerns are reIlective oI major trends in national security strategy Irom the past decade,
including intervention on humanitarian grounds,
preventing the proliIeration oI weapons oI
mass destruction to terrorists, and the upholding oI international nonproliIeration norms.
!"#$ &' $"( '$#$)' *+ $"( ,-&$(. /#$&*-' 0"(1&0#2 3(#4*-' &-'4(0$*5' 5(4*5$ *-
A team oI United Nations (UN) chemical weapons inspectors went to Syria to examine several
sites where attacks were alleged to occur. The inspectors collected samples Irom the sites,
including the site oI the August 21 attack, and those samples are being studied. The team`s
mandate is not to assess who used the weapons, but rather to determine to the extent possible
whether or not chemical weapons were used and what type. According to the U.N., the inspectors
are to 'collect as many Iacts as possible and assess the nature oI the extent oI any attack using
chemical weapons and its consequences.¨ The determination oI what chemical agents were used
The issue oI international humanitarian intervention is not a new phenomenon and predates the concept oI the
Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which is more narrowly deIined. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a concept that
was adopted by heads oI state and government at the 2005 U.N. World Summit (U.N. General Assembly Resolution
60/1). R2P includes three primary elements: (1) each State has a responsibility to protect its populations Irom genocide,
war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity; (2) the international community, through the United
Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate means to help protect populations Irom these same conditions;
and (3) the international community is prepared to take collective action through the U.N. Security Council on a case-
by-case basis, should peaceIul means be inadequate and national authorities maniIestly Iail to protect their populations.
The concept oI R2P and its possible application to Syria is currently being debated among some experts and policy
makers both in the United States and the international community. The R2P concept, as adopted by the Assembly in
2005, remains a work in progress. Although many have reIerred to it as a 'doctrine,¨ it is neither a doctrine nor a Iully-
developed principle. A clear decision-making process and standard operating procedure Ior implementing R2P
decisions have not been developed. For more inIormation on R2P, please contact Marjorie Ann Browne, Specialist in
International Relations; and Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 1:
could also be used to draw conclusions on the source oI the agents (i.e., weaponized sarin versus
organo-phosphates Irom Iertilizer or other chemicals). The United States has supported the U.N.
inspectors` mission in veriIying the use oI chemical weapons in Syria, although on August 28 and
29 the State Department deputy spokesperson raised questions about the credibility oI inspections
given possible degradation oI evidence since the alleged attacks. The inspectors were invited to
Syria by the Syrian government, but they only arrived in the country on August 18just beIore
the apparent August 21 attackaIter months oI negotiating terms oI access Ior the inspections.
!#' &$ $** 2#$( +*5 ,9/9 &-:('$&;#$*5' $* 0*22(0$ (:&.(-0(8
Media reports have noted that the Syrian military continued to bomb the site oI the August 21
attack with conventional weapons. While some physical evidence may have been destroyed at the
site, blood and tissue samples Irom the victims themselves would help the inspectors determine
what chemical agent was used. An August 27 United Kingdom joint intelligence committee
assessment says, 'There is no immediate time limit over which environmental or physiological
samples would have degraded beyond useIulness. However, the longer it takes inspectors to gain
access to the aIIected sites, the more diIIicult it will be to establish the chain oI evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt.¨
The UN inspectors were reportedly given access to the site and to victims oI
the attack.
!"#$ (:&.(-0( &' )'(. $* .($(51&-( <! )'(8
White House statements have described the types oI inIormation that has gone into the
intelligence assessments about the April 2013 use oI sarin. Both the June and August 2013
intelligence assessments have said these sources oI inIormation included: reporting about Syrian
military attack planning and execution, descriptions oI attacks, physiological symptoms
consistent with exposure to chemical weapons agents, and analysis oI physiological samples Irom
multiple victims. Congress may wish to ask the administration Ior inIormation on the credibility
oI this evidence.
!"#$ 0*)-$5&(' "#:( 0"(1&0#2 3(#4*-'8 !"#$ &-$(5-#$&*-#2 -*51' (=&'$ #;#&-'$
$"(&5 )'(8
The U.S. intelligence community cites Iran, North Korea, and Syria as having active chemical
weapons programs. For decades, there has been a strong norm against the use oI chemical
weapons. For the past 25 years, no chemical weapons have been used in civil or cross-border
Most countries that have had chemical weapons arsenals in the past have destroyed
these weapons under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), or are in the process oI
destroying them. The CWC addresses the destruction oI existing stocks, prevention oI
proliIeration to new states, and assistance to countries that are victims oI an attack, but does not
prescribe consequences Ior CW use. Syria is not a party to the CWC.
UK Joint Intelligence Committee Assessment oI 27 August on Reported Chemical Weapons Use in Damascus.
The terrorist group Aum Shinrikyo used sarin gas in the Tokyo subway system in 1995.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 11
!"(- 3(5( 0"(1&0#2 3(#4*-' 2#'$ )'(. *- 0&:&2&#-'8
The Iraqi government used chemical weapons in an attack on Kurdish civilians in the town oI
Halabja, northern Iraq, on March 16, 1988, killing an estimated 5,000 people. This is considered
the largest chemical attack against a civilian population since German atrocities during World
War II. The United States did not respond militarily to the attack. Iraq also systematically used
chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s without a U.S. or
international military response. More recently, the chemical incapacitant BZ was reportedly used
by the Serbian Army in the Iormer Yugoslavia`s civil war in the late 1990s. Both Iraq and the
countries oI the Iormer Yugoslavia have joined the Chemical Weapons Convention.
!"#$ "#' $"( >?#1# @.1&-&'$5#$&*- '#&. #?*)$ $"( &14*5$#-0( *+ $"( @);)'$
As has been widely reported in the press and in public statements, the Obama Administration has
emphasized that it believes this particular use oI chemical weapons may necessitate a response oI
some kind. Echoing a similar statement he made in August 2012, President Obama stated in an
interview on August 28, 2013, that 'I have no interest in any kind oI open-ended conIlict in Syria,
but we do have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like
chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable.¨ The Administration has
conIirmed the use oI the nerve agent sarin in incidents earlier this year; however, the August 21
attack killed civilians on a larger scale than in past incidents. The Administration has stated that it
aims to deter Iuture use oI these weapons by Syria and others, as well as to prevent these weapons
Irom being diverted to terrorists or used against U.S. interests or allies in the region.
The Administration has also emphasized the norm against the use oI chemical weapons. Secretary
Kerry said in a speech on August 26 that 'all peoples and all nations who believe in the cause oI
our common humanity must stand up to assure that there is accountability Ior the use oI chemical
weapons so that it never happens again.¨ These views were reiterated in more extensive remarks
by the Secretary on August 30, discussed above. However, although media speculation about
possible military action abounds, U.S. oIIicials have not directly provided speciIics on what kind
oI response might take place and how that response could prevent Iuture use oI chemical weapons
in Syria or elsewhere.
1&2&$#57 #0$&*-8 !"#$ 3*)2. ?( -((.(. $* '(0)5( 0"(1&0#2 3(#4*-' '&$(' .)5&-;
#- &-$(5:(-$&*-8
While it is possible that military strikes could render chemical weapons agents unusable,
according to many observers, there would be considerable risk to nearby civilian populations iI
Syrian chemical weapons Iacilities were attacked in a military strike Irom the air. This is because
nerve agents could be dispersed into the air in the course oI any strike against these Iacilities.
One major concern oI the United States is the risk that chemical weapons would Iall into the
hands oI terrorist groups iI the Syrian military lost control oI or diverted them. The scale oI the
CW stocks in Syria would present a great challenge Ior physical security. General Martin
Dempsey, Chairman oI the Joint ChieIs oI StaII, wrote in a July letter to Congress that
'|t|housands oI special operations Iorces and other ground Iorces would be needed to assault and
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 12
secure critical sites.¨ The operation would result in the 'control oI some, but not all chemical
weapons¨ and 'would also help prevent their Iurther proliIeration into the hands oI extremist
groups,¨ the letter said. U.S. military eIIorts to date have Iocused on bolstering security near
Syria`s borders with neighboring countries such as Jordan and Turkey, perhaps partly to help
deter any transIer oI chemical weapons out oI Syria.
!"#$ &-$(5-#$&*-#2 2(;#2 &-'$5)1(-$' ?#- 0"(1&0#2 3(#4*-' )'(8
Chemical weapons have been banned under the CWC since 1997. The CWC bans the
development, production, transIer, stockpiling, and use oI chemical and toxin weapons, mandates
the destruction oI all chemical weapons production Iacilities, and seeks to control the production
and international transIer oI the key chemical components oI these weapons. Countries that are
members oI the convention may ask Ior assistance and protection iI they are attacked with
chemical weapons. The Iollowing countries are not parties to the CWC: Angola, Egypt, Israel,
Myanmar, North Korea, South Sudan, and Syria.
The 1925 Geneva Protocol Ior the Prohibition oI the Use in War oI Asphyxiating, Poisonous or
Other Gases, and oI Bacteriological Methods oI WarIare bans the use oI chemical or biological
agents in warIare against other states, but does not address the use oI these weapons in internal
conIlicts. Syria did sign the Geneva Protocol.
War Pnwcrs
Any deployment oI U.S. Armed Forces into the territory, airspace, or waters oI Syria implicates
generally the war powers vested in Congress under the Constitution, the Ioremost oI which is the
authority to declare war.
The War Powers Resolution, as amended (WPR; P.L. 93-148), is intended to provide a process Ior
congressional-executive branch cooperation and the assertion oI congressional oversight and
authority related to involving U.S. Armed Forces in armed conIlict. The WPR requires the
President to consult with Congress prior to introducing U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or
situations in which hostilities are imminent, and to report to the Speaker oI the House oI
Representatives and the President pro tempore oI the Senate within 48 hours oI:
! introducing U.S. Armed Forces into current or imminent hostilities;
! deploying combat-equipped U.S. Armed Forces into a Ioreign country`s territory,
airspace, or waters; or
! increasing substantially the number oI U.S. Armed Forces already located in a
Ioreign country.
Israel and Myanmar have signed but not ratiIied the Convention.
Prepared by Matthew C. Weed, Analyst in Foreign Policy Legislation.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 13
Such report is required to include the reasons necessitating such actions, the President`s authority
to undertake such actions, and the estimated scope and duration oI the hostilities or other
involvement. Authority to use Iorce, according to the WPR, is not to be inIerred Irom other
provisions oI law or treaties unless those instruments speciIically authorize the introduction oI
U.S. Armed Forces that has occurred in each circumstance. The WPR states that unless Congress
enacts a declaration oI war or statutory authorization Ior the use oI Iorce, or the Congress cannot
convene due to an attack on the United States, the President must withdraw U.S. Armed Forces
60 days aIter introducing them into current or imminent hostilities. The 60-day period begins the
day the President was required to report to Congress on such introduction oI U.S. Armed Forces.
The President may extend the period by 30 days to saIely withdraw U.S. Armed Forces Irom
hostilities. Each President since the WPR`s enactment has reIused to concede that this withdrawal
requirement is appropriate under the Constitution, presumably given its possible interIerence with
the President`s powers as commander-in-chieI under Article II.
The WPR provides Ior expedited consideration oI legislative proposals to either authorize
continuing the involvement oI U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities through joint resolution, or to
require a withdrawal oI U.S. Armed Forces at any time aIter introduction oI such Iorces through a
concurrent resolution. The use oI the concurrent resolution to require U.S. Armed Forces
withdrawal is considered to be an example oI a 'legislative veto,¨ a mechanism that has been
deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court when included in other legislation.
$"( )'( *+ 1&2&$#57 +*50( #;#&-'$ 675
A congressional declaration oI war against Syria is seen as unlikely, given historical practice
since World War II. II Congress considers a proposal to statutorily authorize the use oI Iorce
against Syria, it might consider provisions to speciIy the purpose oI such authorization and the
objectives oI the use oI military Iorce, and to place limits on the scope and duration oI such
authorization. It is asserted generally that statutory authorizations place the President in a stronger
position legally and politically to prosecute armed conIlict. Congress has included provisions
limiting the use oI Iunds Ior the military in deIense authorization and appropriation acts, and
could include them in an authorization Ior use oI Iorce in Syria. Some argue, however, that any
provisions attempting to circumscribe the President`s ability to conduct military operations would
improperly interIere with the President`s commander-in-chieI powers under Article II oI the
Constitution. In any case, iI Congress does not otherwise act to limit appropriations that can be
used to continue such military operations, such constricting provisions in the authorization to use
Iorce will likely Iail to limit the President`s ability to continue any commenced military
operations in Syria.
Cnst and Budgctary Rcsnurccs Inr Intcrvcntinn
The potential costs as well as the relevant Iunding sources Ior any U.S. military actions in Syria
are a major congressional concern. Speaker oI the House John Boehner, Ior example, raised the
question oI whether the Administration plans to submit a supplemental appropriations request to
Congress iI 'the scope and duration oI the potential military strikes exceed the initial planning¨ in
Prepared by Amy Belasco, Specialist in U.S. DeIense Policy and Budget.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 14
an August 28, 2013, letter to President Obama.
The cost oI any military intervention could range
widely depending on the type and length oI U.S. military actions, the participation oI U.S. allies,
and Syrian and Syrian-allied responses. Funding sources could also vary depending not only on
the amount required, but also the timing. Congressional participation in decision making on costs
depends on whether the Administration (1) taps currently available Iunding Ior Fiscal Year (FY)
2013; (2) uses appropriations provided in FY2014 iI actions take place aIter October 1, 2013; or
(3) requests reprogrammings oI existing Iunds or supplemental appropriations. The availability oI
Iunds may also be aIIected by the timing as well as the scope oI costs since it is now close to the
last month oI the FY2013, and the Department oI DeIense is closely tracking Iunds so as to
implement required sequestration cuts.
!"#$ #5( $"( 5#-;( #-. +#0$*5' $"#$ 3*)2. #++(0$ $"( 4*$(-$ 0*'$ *+ ,969
1&2&$#57 &-$(5:(-$&*- &- 675
In response to a letter Irom Senators Levin and InhoIe, Chair and Ranking Member oI the Senate
Armed Services Committee, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman oI the Joint ChieIs oI StaII,
outlined the costs oI various military options but did not recommend any particular option since
this is a presidential decision. According to his letter, costs could range Irom $500 million
initially to train, advise, and assist opposition Iorces in a saIe area outside Syria to 'as much as a
billion dollars per month over the course oI a year¨ (up to $12 billion) to use military Iorce to
establish either a no-Ily zone that would prevent the regime Irom using its military aircraIt or a
buIIer zone to protect border areas next to Turkey or Jordan.
General Dempsey also estimated that destroying portions oI Syria`s chemical weapons stockpiles
could require more than a billion dollars a month because 'hundreds oI aircraIt, ships,
submarines, and other enablers¨ and 'thousands oI special operations Iorces and other ground
Iorces¨ would be needed to secure critical sites.
To conduct limited stand-oII strikes on
important military Iorces or units (e.g., air deIense, ground), military Iacilities, or headquarters,
an option mentioned Irequently in current press reports, General Dempsey estimated the cost
could be 'billions¨ depending on the duration.
The Iactors aIIecting cost include the scope oI
military operations (e.g., the numbers and types oI Iorces used), and the length oI the operation,
which may, in turn, depend on Syrian and allied responses.
!"#$ +)-.&-; '*)50(' #5( #:#&2#?2( +*5 ,969 1&2&$#57 &-$(5:(-$&*- &- 675
Depending on the cost, scope and timing oI military operations, the Department oI DeIense
(DOD) may use FY2013 Iunds, FY2014 Iunds, or supplemental appropriations to conduct
military intervention in Syria. According to Secretary oI DeIense Chuck Hagel, the United States
now has 'moved assets in place¨ including Iour DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyers in the
Mediterranean that could meet 'whatever option the president wishes to take.¨
Speaker oI the House, John Boehner, Letter to President Obama, September 28, 2013; http://www.speaker.gov/press-
General Martin Dempsey, Chairman oI the Joint ChieIs oI StaII, 'Memo to Chair oI the Senate Armed Services
Committee,¨ July 19, 2013, pp. 1-2; http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/gen-dempsey-responds-to-
Ibid, p. 1.
BBC, 'U.S. ready to launch Syria strike, says Chuck Hagel,¨ August 27, 2013; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 15
To the extent that DOD relies on U.S. military assets now or planned to be in-place to conduct
military operations, the cost oI deploying those ships (military personnel, Iuel, spare parts) is
presumably Iunded with FY2013 DOD appropriations Ior Military Personnel and Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) that was provided in the FY2013 Consolidated and Continuing
Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6). The deployment oI the Iour destroyers to the Mediterranean in
preparation Ior Syrian operations appears to be part oI the Navy`s planned peacetime presence
mission, and Ior that reason would be Iunded within the Navy`s base budget Ior regular activities
rather than Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) or Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF),
which pays Ior incremental war costs primarily Ior the AIghan war.
BrieI U.S. military operations to establish a no-Ily zone conducted in Libya in 2011 relied almost
exclusively on existing appropriations. DOD`s estimated costs were about $800 million, including
oIIsets or savings Irom lower peacetime Ilying hours during operations.
The Administration also
estimated that the short-lived Libyan operation would not have signiIicant operational impacts on
the AIghan or Iraq wars.
The Administration did not request supplemental appropriations Ior
Libyan operations, relying instead on available Iunds and existing inventories oI munitions.
There is no restriction that prevents the President Irom using available Iunds to conduct wartime
operations. On the other hand, DOD received OCO Iunds Irom Congress to replenish the
inventory oI missiles expended in that operation at a later date.
However, possible U.S. military intervention in Syria could be signiIicantly diIIerent Irom the
2011 Libyan operation. II the scope oI operations and costs proved to be larger than the Libyan
operation, the Department oI DeIense could Iace some diIIiculties in accommodating costs within
its existing budget and shiIting Iunds among activitiesparticularly in view oI sequestration,
which was not applicable in 2011. This could also be complicated because only one month
remains in FY2013, and there is uncertainty about the enactment oI FY2014 appropriations. II
Press reports indicate that the Navy extended the deployment date oI one ship; see, Ior example, RT News, 'US
readies possible missile strike against Syria report,¨ published August 24, 2013; edited, August 25, 2013.
By late 2011, DOD said the overall Libya mission cost was roughly $1 billion.
Congressional Budget OIIice Cost Estimate, 'S.J. Res. 20, A Joint Resolution authorizing the limited use oI United
States Armed Forces in support oI the NATO Mission in Libya as reported by the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations on June 29, 2011¨; http://www.cbo.gov/Itpdocs/123xx/doc12306/sjres20.pdI; Department oI State, DOD,
Report to Congress, United States Activities in Libva, p. 21, June 15, 2011;
¸6¸15¸11.pdI. This report notes that operational impacts on DOD`s other missions were not signiIicant: 'There has not
been a signiIicant operational impact on United States activities in Iraq and AIghanistan. All the Iorces that were
brieIly diverted Irom other operations have been replaced, with the exception oI one Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG).
That capability will be replaced during June 2011. In some cases, Iorces were delayed in arriving in Iraq and
AIghanistan, but the operational impact was mitigated by Iorces already supporting these operations.¨ See also
testimony by Secretary oI DeIense Robert Gates in a March 27, 2011 interview about Libya operations: 'Sec. Gates: . .
. But a lot oI these -- a lot oI the Iorces that we will have available other than the ISR are Iorces that are already
assigned to Europe or have been assigned to Italy or at sea in the Mediterranean.¨ U.S. Department oI DeIense, News
Transcript, ABC`s This Week¨ interview with Secretary oI DeIense Robert M. Gates, and Secretary oI State Hillary
Clinton March 27, 2011; http://www.deIense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID÷4800.
See p. 15 in State, United States Activities in Libva: 'These operating costs will be oIIset through reductions in lower
priority support activities, and there will be some reduction to the peacetime Ilying hour program in part as a result oI
the Libya operation. The Department plans to replace munitions used in the Libyan operation as part oI its normal
programming and budgeting process.¨
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 16
Congress enacts a Continuing Resolution Ior FY2014 appropriations, Iunds originally intended
Ior peacetime operations would be available Ior military operations by 'cash Ilowing.¨
II the cost oI military intervention in Syria proved to be larger than anticipated, DOD could shiIt
Iunds Irom less urgent programs or activities by using reprogramming authority provided in
DOD`s annual authorization and appropriations acts. Moving Iunds Irom one appropriations
account to another or, in some cases, Irom one type oI activity to another requires the written
approval oI the Iour congressional deIense committees.
II the costs oI the operation expanded
Iurther, the Administration might need to request supplemental appropriations, which would
require Iull congressional approval.
On [une 14, 2013, more tban two montbs prlor to tbe reporteo mass casualty cbemlcal weapons attack ln tbe
suburbs ot Damascus, tbe House conoucteo a recoroeo vote relevant to U.S. pollcy towaro Syrla. Tbe vote came on
an amenoment by Representatlve Cbrlstopber P. Glbson to H.R. 1960, tbe FY2014 Natlonal Detense Autborlzatlon
At lssue was Sectlon 1251 ot tbe blll as reporteo by tbe House Armeo Servlces Commlttee, wblcb states a oozen
congresslonal ¨tlnolngs¨ regarolng tbe contllct ln Syrla ano oeclares tbe sense ot Congress concernlng a oozen relateo
lssues. Among tbe tlnolngs stateo by Sectlon 1251 are tlnolngs tbat:
! tbe Presloent bao stateo tbat tbe use ot cbemlcal weapons woulo be a ¨reollne¨ tor tbe Unlteo States, ano tbat
! Secretary ot Detense Hagel bao lnolcateo tbat DOD woulo neeo supplemental approprlatlons ln case U.S. torces
mounteo a mllltary ettort ln Syrla.
Among tbe matters concernlng wblcb Sectlon 1251 e×presses a Sense ot Congress, are tbe tollowlng:
! tbe Presloent ¨sboulo ensure robust contlngency plannlng¨ to secure U.S. lnterests ln Syrla,
! tbe Presloent ¨sboulo ¨tully consloer all courses ot actlon to remove [Syrlan] Presloent 8asblr al-Assao¨,
! tbe contllct ln Syrla ¨tbreatens tbe vltal natlonal securlty lnterests ot |srael ano tbe stablllty ot [oroan, Lebanon,
ano Turkey¨,
! tbe Presloent ¨sboulo tully consloer all courses ot actlon to relntorce bls stateo 'reollne' regarolng tbe use ot
weapons ot mass oestructlon by tbe Assao reglme ln Syrla, wblcb coulo tbreaten tbe creolblllty ot tbe Unlteo
States wltb lts allles ln tbe reglon ano emboloen tbe Assao reglme¨,
! tbe Presloent sboulo present a supplemental buoget request to Congress, sboulo be oecloe to employ any
mllltary assets ln Syrla.
Tbe Glbson amenoment, wblcb woulo bave strlcken Sectlon 1251 trom tbe blll, was rejecteo by a vote ot 123-301.
Since current ship deployments in the Mediterranean are largely Iollowing current plans (with
minor adjustments in schedule), ongoing sequestration cuts would not necessarily have an eIIect.
In addition, the Administration`s and DOD`s policy has been to minimize eIIects on DOD`s core
readiness-related activities such as those deployments.
The President also exempted military
personnel accounts Irom sequestration Ior both FY2013 and FY2014.
See, Ior example, Sec. 8005, P.L. 113-6, the FY2013 Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act oI 2013. See
DOD, 'Budget Execution Flexibility Tutorial¨ at http://comptroller.deIense.gov/BudgetExecution.html.
OMB, JeIIrey D. Zients, Deputy Director Ior Management, ¨Planning Ior Uncertainty with Respect to Fiscal Year
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 17
The services have Iocused ongoing sequestration cuts on lower priority Operation & Maintenance
(O&M) activities such as travel, conIerences, non-training Ilying hours, Iacility upgrades,
InIormation Technology, and depot maintenance. Although the services initially reduced some
training activities to meet sequestration cuts, many oI these cuts were later reversed as savings
became available in other areas. At the same time, some Members oI Congress and DOD
spokesmen have raised concerns about readiness in later years Irom the current sequestration or
Irom later cuts to the DOD budget in FY2014, which could be exacerbated by a lengthy Syrian
II Congress were to enact supplemental appropriations to cover the cost oI Syrian military
intervention, and designated that Iunding as emergency, those monies would not be subject to the
budget caps in the Budget Control Act (BCA). On the other hand, iI Congress does not meet BCA
caps, FY2014 sequestration cuts would be levied by the OIIice oI Management and Budget
(OMB) in early January 2014 and Iunds Ior any operations involving Syria would be part oI the
budgetary resources subject to those cuts. As in the case oI AIghan war costs, however, DOD
could choose to shield those costs Irom cuts by levying higher reductions on other operational
Mi!itary P!anning
As oI September 3, U.S. military planning inIormation is, in unclassiIied sources, largely
speculative. Congress may, as the situation warrants, consider the Iollowing questions regarding
its role in relation to U.S. and allied military plans:
! Which strategic objectives are proposed military operations designed to secure?
How are the proposed operations tailored to meet those speciIic objectives? What
targets would U.S or allied military Iorces strike in Syria? Why? What would
constitute success and how would that success advance broader U.S. policy
objectives in Syria, in the region, and internationally? What would constitute
Iailure and how might that aIIect U.S. objectives?
! Should an authorization Ior the use oI military Iorce be limited in terms oI
purpose, territory, potential targets, potential means, potential cost, or potential
duration? Why or why not? Does the Administration believe that the draIt
authorization submitted to Congress would allow it to conduct military
operations outside oI Syria? Against non-state actors in Syria or elsewhere?
Against the military Iorces oI governments other than Syria?
! What U.S. Iorces and capabilities are currently able to engage targets in Syria?
What potential coalition Iorces and capabilities are available? Which countries
are willing to take part in military strikes? Which countries are willing to allow
their territory, waters, and airspace to be used to Iacilitate proposed operations?
With what conditions? How do the current prospects Ior international support
2013 Budgetary Resources,¨ January 14, 2013;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/deIault/Iiles/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-03.pdI. DOD, Memorandum Irom Under
Secretary oI DeIense Ashton Carter to the Military Departments, Joint ChieIs oI StaII, DeIense agencies and others,
¨Handling Budgetary Uncertainty in Fiscal Year 2013,¨ January 10, 2013.
Prepared by Nathan J. Lucas, Section Research Manager, DeIense Policy and Arms Control.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 18
impact the U.S. military mission in terms oI risk, cost, Ieasibility, and likely
! What Iorce might the Syrian government bring to bear to resist or respond to a
military operation against it? How might Syrian allies such as Russia, Iran, and
non-state actors like Hezbollah respond to any U.S. military intervention? How
might extremist groups seek to take advantage oI any U.S. operations? How
might opposition groups receiving U.S. support beneIit or be put at risk by U.S.
military operations? What are the 'known unknowns¨ with regard to a potential
U.S. military response to the alleged use oI chemical weapons?
! Who are the most capable armed groups operating in Syria? What are their long-
term political goals? Should proposed military operations be conducted in
conjunction with an increase in direct support to armed or unarmed opposition
groups? Why or why not?
! How can the United States best limit opportunities Ior violent extremist groups to
take advantage oI any proposed military strike? What threats to U.S. security and
regional security might Iollow Irom these groups in the event oI regime change?
! What have leaders in Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon,
the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar told the Administration regarding their
individual views oI the August 21 incident and the proposed U.S. response? How
does the Administration envision assisting other countries in mitigating the
impact oI any potential retaliation or provocation?
! II the U.S. conducts military strike operations in Syria, what are the next steps
that military Iorces would take? Is the U.S. military in a position to sustain
military operations in the region?
! Given the impact oI sequestration on U.S. military operations and maintenance,
as well as the continued deployment oI military assets in support oI operations in
AIghanistan and elsewhere, are U.S. Iorces Iully prepared to undertake both
planned and contingent military operations in Syria? Would the possible
dedication oI already constrained U.S. military and/or DOD-contracted
commercial airliIt and sealiIt to a Syrian contingency operation have an adverse
impact on U.S. retrograde operations currently underway in AIghanistan?
!"#$ #5( '*1( 1&2&$#57 *4$&*-' 5(4*5$(.27 )-.(5 0*-'&.(5#$&*-8
Several media reports indicate that the United States is considering a military strike against Syria
in response to the regime`s alleged use oI chemical weapons against civilians on August 21.
Numerous accounts suggest that the strategic goal oI such a punitive strike would be to deter
Iuture chemical weapons use and degrade the Asad regime`s capabilities to carry out Iuture
attacks. Some analysts question whether limited strikes can successIully accomplish the strategic
objective oI deterrence. For example, Chris Harmer, a senior naval analyst at the Institute Ior the
Study oI War, has argued that 'the Assad regime has shown an incredible capacity to endure pain
and I don't think we have the stomach to deploy enough punitive action that would serve as a
Prepared by Jeremy M. Sharp, Specialist in Middle Eastern AIIairs.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 19
In the event the United States strikes Syria, some reports suggest that the military would use
guided cruise missiles. The U.S. Navy has guided missile destroyers in the Mediterranean capable
oI carrying Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM) which have a maximum range oI 1,000
miles. U.S. aircraIt, such as the B-2 bomber, also can carry air-launched cruise missiles. The
beneIit oI using so-called 'stand-oII weapons¨ such as a TLAM Iired Irom a destroyer is that the
Iiring vessel can be stationed beyond the range oI Syrian anti-ship missiles.
Other proposed military options, such as establishing no-Ily zones
inside or outside Syria, may
require a more extensive and longer-term U.S. commitment. According to Chairman oI the Joint
ChieIs oI StaII General Martin Dempsey, 'Lethal Iorce would be required to deIend the zones
against air, missile, and ground attacks.... This would necessitate the establishment oI a limited
no-Ily zone, with its associated resource requirements. Thousands oI U.S. ground Iorces would be
needed, even iI positioned outside Syria, to support those physically deIending the zones.¨
Operationally, Congress may wish to scrutinize the U.S. military`s evaluation oI the situation in
evaluating a potential no-Ily zone. In evaluating the situation, one may consider the nature and
density oI adversary air deIenses, the quantity and quality oI adversary air assets, geography, and
availability oI 'Iriendly¨ assets. In evaluating adversaries, one may consider their strategy and
tactics, their possible responses, their concept oI operations, and their rules oI engagement.
II the United States and others were to conduct manned aerial strikes against Syria, the United
States may employ its F-16 aircraIt stationed in Jordan. Additionally, the Air Force`s 39
Air Base
Wing is based at Incirlik air base in southern Turkey, and U.S. military action against Syria could
originate Irom there, though it might require prior approval Irom Turkey`s parliament. II France
were to take part in military action against Syria, it has access to an air base in the United Arab
U.5. Aid tn thc Oppnsitinn
Arming thc 5yrian Oppnsitinn
Press accounts suggest the Administration is currently taking steps to provide arms to Syrian
rebels under covert action authorities. The statute concerning covert action thus shapes both how
the Administration can intervene in Syria under those authorities and the way in which the
Administration engages with Congress about any intervention.
!"#$ #5( $"( 2&1&$' #-. (=$(-$ *+ 0*:(5$ #0$&*- #)$"*5&$&(' 3&$" 5('4(0$ $*
Covert action is deIined in statute as 'an activity or activities oI the United States Government to
inIluence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role oI
This issue is discussed in depth in CRS Report R41701, No-Flv Zones. Strategic, Operational, and Legal
Considerations for Congress, coordinated by Jeremiah Gertler.
'Syria: What are the West's military options?¨ Agence France Presse, August 22, 2013.
Prepared by Marshall Erwin, Analyst in Intelligence and National Security.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 2:
the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly.¨
Section 503 oI
the National Security Act oI 1947 authorizes the President to conduct covert action iI that action
is necessary to support identiIiable Ioreign policy objectives oI the United States and is important
to the national security oI the United States. The statute requires the President to write a 'Iinding¨
that speciIies the identiIiable Ioreign policy objectives. The President must provide the Iinding to
the congressional intelligence committees as soon as possible and beIore the initiation oI the
covert action.
The President is not required to provide the Iinding to members who are not on
the intelligence committees.
The 'apparent or acknowledged¨ language in the statute may provide a vague limitation on the
extent to which covert action authorities can be utilized as the situation in Syria evolves. During
past covert actions in other countries, the role oI the U.S. government has typically become
apparent or acknowledged in the course oI public debate. This has not always proven to be a
limiting Iactor regarding whether covert action authorities are applicable. Nonetheless, the
broader the U.S. actions and the more those actions require an administration to make a case to
the American public, the more diIIicult it may become to justiIy activities under these authorities.
Although covert action is generally the domain oI the Central Intelligence Agency, the statute
does not identiIy speciIic departments or agencies that may conduct covert action. Executive
Order 12333, concerning United States Intelligence Activities, notes that, 'No agency except the
Central Intelligence Agency (or the Armed Forces oI the United States in time oI war declared by
the Congress or during any period covered by a report Irom the President to the Congress
consistent with the War Powers Resolution, P.L. 93-148) may conduct any covert action activity
unless the President determines that another agency is more likely to achieve a particular
Nnn-Lctha! Aid tn thc Oppnsitinn and Ecnnnmic 5anctinns against thc
The Administration`s decision and the means otherwise available to provide material support to
Syria`s oppositionin the Iorm oI humanitarian goods and services, non-lethal aid, or military
assistanceIace obstacles Irom a robust U.S. economic sanctions regime maintained against
Syria Ior decades. These sanctions were triggered by the Syrian government`s support oI
international terrorism, poor human rights record, and weapons proliIeration.
50 U.S. C. 413b
Section 503 provides a number oI exceptions to this notiIication requirement. Among those, the President may limit
notiIication to the 'gang oI eight¨the leaders oI the intelligence committees and the leaders oI the House and
Senateto meet extraordinary circumstances aIIecting vital interests oI the United States.
Executive Order 12333, 'United States Intelligence Activities.¨
Prepared by Dianne E Rennack, Specialist in Foreign Policy Legislation.
More recently, in a series oI Executive Orders based on authority granted his oIIice in the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act, the President declared that Syria`s occupation oI Lebanon, pursuit oI weapons oI mass
destruction, and destabilization eIIorts in Iraq posed an extraordinary threat to the United States` national security,
Ioreign policy, and economy. In ensuing years, he Iurther determined that the Syrian government was implicated in the
assassination oI Lebanon`s prime minister, massive public corruption, human rights abuses including the use oI torture,
arbitrary detention, and escalating violence against the Syrian people.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 21
+*5(&;- #&. $* $"( 675&#- *44*'&$&*-8
Laws authorizing U.S. Ioreign aid programs are constructed generally to provide assistance state-
to-state, and Syria is explicitly prohibited Irom eligibility under current appropriations. The U.S.
growing interest in supporting Syrian opposition Iorces is Iurther complicated by international
obligations that require the United States to control exports and identiIy end-users to meet
standards relating to terrorism, regional stability, and weapons proliIeration. The President,
however, has authority, notwithstanding the restrictions, to provide humanitarian aid, Iund
emergency response eIIorts in neighboring states, contribute to multinational programs that are
engaged in the international response to Syria`s crisis, and reprogram assistance Irom other
programs to those that address disasters or unanticipated events. SpeciIic laws that the President
can draw upon include:
! Section 2(c) oI the Migration and ReIugee Assistance Act oI 1962 (22 U.S.C.
2601(c)) authorizes the President to respond to 'unexpected urgent reIugee and
migration needs¨ iI he determines it is important to U.S. national interests to do
! Section 451 oI the Foreign Assistance Act oI 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2261) authorizes
the President to draw upon up to $25 million in Ioreign aid in a Iiscal year to
respond to 'unanticipated contingencies....¨
! Section 552(c) oI the Foreign Assistance Act oI 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2348a(c))
authorizes the President to provide peacekeeping operations Iunds (up to $15
million in Iunds and up to $425 million in commodities and services in a Iiscal
year) to respond to any 'unIoreseen emergency¨ iI he Iinds it 'important to the
national interests¨ to do so.
! Section 614 oI the Foreign Assistance Act oI 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2364) authorizes
the President to provide assistance 'without regard¨ to any other restriction in
that Act or other Ioreign aid- or military aid-related laws iI he Iinds it 'important
to the security interests oI the United States¨ to do so. He may make up to $250
million available, but not more than $50 million to one country, in a given Iiscal
! In addition, section 202(a) oI the Food Ior Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1722(a))
authorizes the Administrator oI the U.S. Agency Ior International Development to
'provide agricultural commodities to meet emergency Iood needs through
governments and public or private agencies including intergovernmental
organizations such as the World Food Program and other multilateral
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 22
Most U.S. Ioreign aid going to Syria is Ior humanitarian assistance. In FY2013, the United States
is providing over $1 billion oI humanitarian assistance and more than $250 million in non-
humanitarian aid to the people oI Syria to support the opposition. According to the Department oI
State, transIer authority Ior Overseas Contingency Operations provided within appropriations
laws, and Section 451 oI the Foreign Assistance Act oI 1961, which authorizes the President to
use up to $25 million in one Iiscal year Ior unanticipated contingencies, has been and continues to
be crucial Ior providing both humanitarian and non-humanitarian aid to Syria since 2011.
The Obama Administration has acknowledged the Iunding challenges that the Syria crisis
presents and worked with Congress to increase the balances in global humanitarian assistance
accounts in the FY2013 Iinal appropriations bill to better meet Syria related needs. However, the
Administration has not identiIied speciIic additional Syria assistance Iunding requests in its
FY2014 appropriations budget and all indications suggest that the Administration intends to
continue to Iund Syria opposition assistance eIIorts on an ad hoc basis by presenting
reprogramming requests and emergency contingency notiIications to Congress.
The Administration did request $580 million Ior a new Middle East and North AIrica Incentive
Fund (MENA IF) that would have provided a multiyear source oI Iunding to respond to
contingencies in Arab countries, including Syria, as needed. However, the House Appropriations
Committee has declined to include Iunds Ior the Incentive Fund in its markup oI H.R. 2855.
Senate appropriators similarly declined to provide Iunds and authorities Ior MENA IF as
requested by the Administration and has proposed a $575 million Complex Foreign Crises Fund
to meet region wide assistance needs in their markup oI S. 1372.
!"* &' &-:*2:(. 3&$" .(+&-&-; #-. &142(1(-$&-; $"( ,969 '#-0$&*-' 5(;&1(8
Congress enacts annual Ioreign operations appropriations, can amend restrictions stated in
authorizations, and can enact legislation to incrementally or Iully remove restrictions. The
President can exercise any or all oI the Ioreign aid authorities listed above. He also is authorized,
under the National Emergencies Act (particularly 50 U.S.C. 1621) and the International
Emergencies Economic Powers Act (particularly 50 U.S.C. 1702) to restrict all transactions any
U.S. person or entity might enter into with Syria or designated individuals therein. The State
Department oversees arms sales and transIers, visas, and U.S. Agency Ior International
Development (USAID) programs. The Department oI Commerce issues export licenses aIter
taking into consideration a recipient country`s compliance with international standards relating to
terrorism, regional stability, and proliIeration. The Department oI the Treasury controls Iinancial
transactions relating to trade and economic engagement, and is also guided by those international
Prepared by Susan B. Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Policy and Christopher Blanchard, Specialist in Middle Eastern
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 23
U.5. Humanitarian Rcspnnsc
The ongoing conIlict in Syria has created one oI the most pressing humanitarian crises in the
world. As oI September 3, 2013, an estimated 6.8 million people in Syria, almost one-third oI the
population, have been aIIected by the conIlict, including more than 4.2 million displaced inside
Syria and more than 2 million displaced as reIugees in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, and
other parts oI North AIrica. The situation is Iluid and continues to worsen, while humanitarian
needs are immense and increase daily. The United States has a critical role and voice regarding
humanitarian access in Syria, the pace oI humanitarian developments and contingency planning,
support to neighboring countries that are hosting reIugees, and burden sharing among donors.
The United States is the largest donor oI humanitarian assistance and is part oI the massive,
international humanitarian operation in parts oI Syria and in neighboring countries. In FY2012
and (as oI late-August) in FY2013, the United States has allocated more than $1 billion to meet
humanitarian needs using existing Iunding Irom global humanitarian accounts and some
reprogrammed Iunding. U.S. humanitarian policy is guided by concerns about humanitarian
access and protection within Syria; the large reIugee Ilows out oI the country that strain the
resources oI neighboring countries (and could negatively impact the overall stability oI the
region); and the potential Ior Iurther escalation and protraction oI the humanitarian emergency.
The international humanitarian response is immense and complex, but struggles to keep pace with
urgent developments that have risen above anticipated needs. Access within Syria is severely
constrained by violence and restrictions imposed by the Syrian government on the operations oI
humanitarian organizations. Two U.N. emergency appeals, which identiIy a total oI $4.4 billion in
humanitarian needs, are less than 43° Iunded.
!"#$ "#:( ?((- '*1( *+ $"( 4*''&?2( ")1#-&$#5&#- 4*2&07 0*-'&.(5#$&*-' +*5
<*-;5('' $* .#$(8 !"#$ (++(0$ 1&;"$ 1&2&$#57 #0$&*- "#:( *- $"( ")1#-&$#5&#-
As U.S. policy makers and the international community deliberate over what, iI any, actions they
can or should take on the Syria crisis, possible humanitarian policy considerations Ior Congress
include (1) issues related to U.S. resources and determination oI priorities, including other
humanitarian or Ioreign aid concerns and domestic needs ; (2) and the potential costs and beneIits
oI labeling or 'branding¨ oI humanitarian aid delivered to Syria so that recipients and possibly
other actors are aware oI its American origins. It is unclear what eIIect military action may have
on the humanitarian situation in Syria and in the region. Since mid-August reIugee outIlows have
increased in anticipation oI Ioreign military strikes and an intensiIication oI Iighting inside Syria.
Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy. For more inIormation, see CRS
Report R43119, Svria. Overview of the Humanitarian Response, by Rhoda Margesson and Susan G. Chesser.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 24
Intcrnatinna! Rcspnnsc
Thc Unitcd Natinns 5ccurity Cnunci!
Under the United Nations (U.N.) Charter, the U.N. Security Council is the primary mechanism
Ior addressing issues related to the maintenance oI international peace and security. Decisions oI
the Council are binding on member states. Adoption oI resolutions is the most prevalent method
Ior Council decision-making.
The Council has 15 membersIive permanent (China, France,
Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, hereaIter 'P-5¨) and 10 non-permanent
(currently Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Luxembourg, Morocco, Pakistan,
Republic oI Korea (South Korea), Rwanda, and Togo). Decisions on non-procedural or
substantive matters require nine aIIirmative votes, including the concurring votes oI the
permanent members. Thus, a negative vote by any oI the P-5 is a veto over adoption oI a draIt
Few observers expect consensus on Syria to be reached among the P-5. Since the
conIlict began, both China and Russia have vetoed three draIt Council resolutions addressing the
conIlict. As oI August 29, the P-5 had met to discuss a draIt resolution proposed by the United
Kingdom regarding the use oI chemical weapons in Syria.
Any Security Council decisions to authorize the use oI Iorce would likely be taken under Chapter
VII oI the U.N. Charter, entitled, 'Action with respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches oI the
Peace, and Acts oI Aggression.¨ Article 42 oI this Chapter authorizes the Council to take 'action
by air, sea or land Iorces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and
Such actions might include a variety oI military operations by the Iorces oI U.N.
member states, including but not limited to demonstrations and blockades.
Russia has provided consistent diplomatic and military support to the Asad regime in Syria during
the civil war. Russia recognizes the Asad regime as the currently legitimate government oI Syria
and asserts a sovereign right to provide arms to the regime under existing arms sales contracts.
Russia also has a lease on a naval docking Iacility at Tartus, Syria. Russia has vetoed three U.N.
Security Council (UNSC) resolutions aimed at addressing the Syrian conIlict on the grounds that
they would have unduly interIered with the domestically-involved parties` eIIorts to reach a
peaceIul political solution to the conIlict.
Prepared by Luisa BlanchIield and Marjorie Browne, Specialists in International Relations.
The Council may also make decisions by consensus (i.e. without voting).
P-5 abstentions are not considered vetoes.
Prepared by Jim Nichol, Specialist in Russian and Eurasian AIIairs.
For background inIormation, see 'Bilateral Relations and Syria,¨ in CRS Report RL33407, Russian Political,
Economic, and Securitv Issues and U.S. Interests, coordinated by Jim Nichol.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 25
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has stressed that possible military action in Syria
without UNSC authorization would violate international law and vitiate eIIorts to Iind a peaceIul
solution to the conIlict, such as a potential Syrian government-rebel conIerence that has been
discussed by the United States and Russia. He also alleged that the apparent chemical weapons
attack on August 21 may have been a provocation by the rebels, as Russia has asserted in
previous cases, and warned that any Western military action could Iurther destabilize the Middle
On August 26, Foreign Minister Lavrov underscored that 'we do not intend to go to war with
anyone,¨ reIerring to a possible U.S. military action in Syria.
Russian media also reported that a
military source stated that 'the time when we waged wars Ior someone else is in the past.¨
Russian Navy spokesman announced on August 28 that remaining Russian personnel at the Tartus
naval docking Iacility were planning to leave by sea, and the Russian Emergency Situation
Ministry reported that it had evacuated over 100 Russian citizens by air on August 27-28, and
would continue such Ilights as necessary.
A Russian naval Iorce in the Mediterranean Sea
reportedly is being increased to monitor developments in Syria.
On August 28, Russia (and China) blocked discussion in the UNSC oI a possible resolution
introduced by the United Kingdom condemning the August 21 gas attack in Syria and authorizing
necessary measuresincluding military actionto protect civilians, with Foreign Minister
Lavrov stating that any such resolution should await the Iindings oI the mission oI U.N.
inspectors. He stressed that possible military action in Syria without UNSC authorization would
violate international law and vitiate eIIorts to Iind a peaceIul solution to the conIlict, such as the
planned Syrian government-rebel conIerence that was being organized by the United States and
Russia prior to the gas attack. He also alleged that the chemical weapons attack may have been a
provocation by the rebels, as Russia has asserted in previous cases, and warned that any Western
military action could Iurther destabilize the Middle East.
Ministrv of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, On a Telephone Conversation between Russian Foreign
Minister Sergev Lavrov and British Secretarv of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs William Hague, reported
in Open Source Center, Central Eurasia. Dailv Report (CEDR), August 28, 2013, Doc. No. CEL-65802960; Ministry
oI Foreign AIIairs oI the Russian Federation, Statement bv Russian Foreign Affairs Minister S. J. Lavrov and His
Responses to Questions Posed bv the Mass Media in the Course of a Press Conference on the Topic of Chemical
Weapons in Svria and the Situation Surrounding the Svrian Arab Republic, CEDR, August 27, 2013, Doc. No. CEL-
45634080. See also Statement bv Russian Foreign Ministrv spokesman A.K. Lukashevich in Connection with the U.S.
Defense Secretarvs Remarks, Russian Ministry oI Foreign AIIairs, August 25, 2013.
CEDR, August 27, 2013, Doc. No. CEL-45634080.
CEDR, August 28, 2013, Doc. No. CEL-34189719.
Interfax, August 28, 2013.
Ministrv of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, On a Telephone Conversation between Russian Foreign
Minister Sergev Lavrov and British Secretarv of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs William Hague, reported
in Open Source Center, Central Eurasia. Dailv Report (CEDR), August 28, 2013, Doc. No. CEL-65802960; Ministry
oI Foreign AIIairs oI the Russian Federation, Statement bv Russian Foreign Affairs Minister S. J. Lavrov and His
Responses to Questions Posed bv the Mass Media in the Course of a Press Conference on the Topic of Chemical
Weapons in Svria and the Situation Surrounding the Svrian Arab Republic, CEDR, August 27, 2013, Doc. No. CEL-
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 26
As one oI the Iive veto-wielding permanent members oI the United Nations Security Council,
China`s support or abstention is necessary Ior any Security Council authorization Ior the use oI
Iorce against the Syrian government. In a closed-door session oI the U.N. Security Council on
August 28, 2013, China joined Russia in blocking the resolution draIted by the U.K. government
that would have authorized the use oI Iorce against the Syrian government in response to the
alleged chemical weapons attack on August 21.
China has indicated that its opposition stems primarily Irom its conviction that military action
will Iurther destabilize a region on which China relies Ior halI its oil imports. In an August 28,
2013, statement, China`s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, emphasized, 'China Iirmly opposes any use,
by anyone, oI chemical weapons in Syria.¨ Nonetheless, he said, 'External military intervention
contravenes the purposes and principles oI the U.N. Charter and the basic norms oI international
relations, and will add to the turmoil in the Middle East.¨ Wang called Ior U.N. inspectors to be
allowed to carry out their investigation with 'no interIerence,¨ and with 'no prejudgment¨ oI
their results.
Asked on September 2, 2013 about China`s response to the Obama Administration`s August 30
release oI its assessment oI the Syrian government`s use oI chemical weapons, a Chinese Foreign
Ministry spokesman said only that China had 'noted¨ it. The spokesman went on to insist that,
'Any action taken by the international community should be based on the results oI the U.N.
investigation, which will answer questions like whether chemical weapons were used and who
used them,¨ suggesting that China has not, so Iar at least, accepted the U.S. contention that
chemical weapons were used by Asad government Iorces. The spokesman said China was
'gravely concerned¨ about possible unilateral military action by the United States.
China has a long-standing policy oI non-interIerence in the aIIairs oI other sovereign nations,
which is thought to be based in part on China`s desire to head oII any Ioreign intervention in its
own aIIairs, including its treatment oI its Tibetan and Uighur ethnic minority populations. In
recent years, however, China has on occasion strayed Irom the principle oI non-interIerence.
Notably, in March 2011 China joined Russia in abstaining on a U.N. resolution authorizing
military action against the GaddaIi regime in Libya, allowing the resolution to pass. Despite its
abstention, Beijing chose to criticize the military action itselI publicly just three days aIter the
vote, with a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson expressing 'regret¨ over a multinational air
45634080. See also Statement bv Russian Foreign Ministrv spokesman A.K. Lukashevich in Connection with the U.S.
Defense Secretarvs Remarks, Russian Ministry oI Foreign AIIairs, August 25, 2013.
Prepared by Susan V. Lawrence, CRS Specialist in Asian AIIairs.
Ministry oI Foreign AIIairs oI the People`s Republic oI China, 'Foreign Minister Wang Yi: China Calls on All
Parties Concerned to Exercise Restraints and Calmness on Situation in Syria,¨ statement, August 28, 2013,
Ministry oI Foreign AIIairs oI the People`s Republic oI China, 'Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei`s Regular
Press ConIerence on September 2, 2013,¨ transcript. September 2, 2013,
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 27
strike against Libya, and re-stating China`s position that it 'disapproves |oI| the use oI Iorce in
international relations.¨
Unlike Russia, China says it is not motivated by a desire to prop up the government oI President
Asad. Although it has energy interests in the region, China has limited economic interests and
only '20-plus¨ citizens in Syria,
and has not taken sides in the Syrian civil war. According to a
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, 'China has no selIish interests on the Syrian issue and
has no intention to protect any party.¨
China has hosted visits Irom both Syrian government
envoys and representatives oI an opposition group, the Syrian National Coordination Committee
Ior Democratic Change.
Eurnpcan and NATO Pcrspcctivcs
European governments have uniIormly condemned the Asad regime and most have called Ior
IorceIul international action in response to the regime`s alleged use oI chemical weapons. There
is disagreement, however, on what Iorm such action should take, and widespread skepticism and
reluctance on the question oI possible oIIensive military action. Collective military operations
against the Asad government through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or the
European Union (EU) thereIore do not appear to be a possibility.
At the end oI August 2013, in Iact, it appears that France is the only European country
considering military action. In any case, most analysts doubt that any European military action
would occur without the participation oI the United States.
Unitcd Kingdnm
The UK government has been leading international pressure against the Asad regime in Syria.
Alongside France, the UK has pushed Ior United Nations action, has been a leading voice in
passing EU sanctions against the Asad regime, and successIully argued Ior liIting the EU arms
embargo in order to assist opposition Iorces. Although it has not openly delivered weapons to the
opposition, the UK has reportedly provided non-lethal equipment, humanitarian assistance, and
some training. Following the report oI chemical weapons attacks by Syrian Iorces on August 21,
the UK`s National Security Council 'decided unanimously that the use oI chemical weapons by
the Assad regime is unacceptable and that the world can not stand by in the Iace oI that.¨
Ministry oI Foreign AIIairs oI the People`s Republic oI China, 'Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Jiang Yu's Remarks
on Multinational Military Strike against Libya,¨ statement, March 21, 2013,
Ministry oI Foreign AIIairs oI the People`s Republic oI China, 'Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei`s Regular
Press ConIerence on September 2, 2013,¨ transcript. September 2, 2013,
Ministry oI Foreign AIIairs oI the People's Republic oI China, 'Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei's Remarks
on the U.N. General Assembly's Adoption oI the Resolution on the Syrian Issue,¨ statement, May 16, 2013,
"Chinese FM meets Syrian opposition group delegation," Xinhua English News, September 18, 2012; Ministry oI
Foreign AIIairs oI the People's Republic oI China, 'Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Liu Weimin`s Regular Press
ConIerence on February 9, 2012,¨ transcript, http://www.Imprc.gov.cn/eng/xwIw/s2510/t904275.htm.
Prepared by Paul Belkin, Analyst in European AIIairs (NATO, France, and Germany), Derek Mix, Analyst in
European AIIairs (EU and UK), and Jim Zanotti, Specialist in Middle Eastern AIIairs (Turkey).
UK Foreign & Commonwealth OIIice, Foreign Secretarv calls for strong international response to chemical attack
in Svria, August 28, 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/Ioreign-secretary-calls-Ior-strong-international-
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 28
August 29 letter Irom the chairman oI the UK`s Joint Intelligence Committee to Prime Minister
David Cameron concluded 'it is highly likely that the regime was responsible¨ and that 'there are
no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility.¨
The government`s campaign to build
a case Ior military action abruptly deIlated, however, when the House oI Commons voted on
August 29 against UK participation in any prospective strikes on the Asad regime, and Prime
Minister Cameron subsequently ruled it out. There have been subsequent suggestions that the
Cameron government might go back to Parliament iI substantial new evidence against Asad is
presented, but as oI early September, UK involvement is expected to consist primarily oI
intelligence support and diplomatic pressure.
Along with the UK, the French government has been leading international eIIorts to pressure the
Asad regime. France was the Iirst country to recognize the Syrian Opposition Coalition (SOC) as
the 'sole legitimate representative oI the Syrian people.¨ OIIicials in Paris have said there is 'no
doubt¨ that Asad has used chemical weapons and have indicated that they Iavor military strikes
against Asad in response. France reportedly has deployed an anti-aircraIt Irigate oII the Syrian
coast in anticipation oI such an operation. Commentators have noted, however, that France could
Iace shortages in air assets, particularly given ongoing operations in Mali; they add that French
strikes would come only in support oI a U.S.-led operation. The French government has
emphasized the importance oI boosting assistance, including military aid, to 'moderate¨
opposition Iorces in Syria.
French oIIicials have expressed heightened concern about the
growing strength oI Islamist militias within the Syrian opposition. They have warned that the
international community must increase assistance to 'moderate¨ opposition groupsincluding to
their military structuresin order to stem extremist inIluences. Following the UK`s vote rejecting
participation in a military strike, French President Hollande indicated that France remained
prepared to act. On September 2, the French government published an intelligence dossier
blaming Iorces loyal to Asad Ior the August 21 chemical weapons attack in Damascus, and the
issue is to be debated in the French Assembly and Senate during the Iirst week oI September.
UK Cabinet OIIice, Svria. reported chemical weapons use - Joint Intelligence Committee letter, August 29, 2013,
Unless otherwise noted, inIormation in this section comes Irom: Open Source Center, OSC Report: Europe, Saudi
Arabia Favor ForceIul Answer to Syria CW Use, OSC Report EUL2013082703203597, August 27, 2103; 'French
Blog: Military Options in Syria Limited by Equipment Shortages,¨ Le Mamouth, August 26, 2013, Open Source Center
In addition to about t13 million (about $16.8 million) in humanitarian aid Ior Syrian civilians in 2012, Paris has
pledged t5 million (about $6.6 million) in assistance to the SOC, including non-lethal military aid such as night-vision
gear and high-tech communications devices. French Foreign Ministry, http://www.diplomatie.gouv.Ir/en/country-
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 29
The German government has strongly condemned the Asad regime, calling its alleged use oI
chemical weapons a 'horriIic crime against humanity ... that cannot go unpunished.¨ Berlin is
reportedly reluctant, however, to endorse a military response that is not authorized by the U.N.
Security Council. Germany is also considered unlikely to participate in any military operation in
Syria, even iI under a U.N. or NATO mandate. Analysts note that the German government could
be particularly sensitive to public opposition to potential oIIensive military action ahead oI a
Iederal election scheduled Ior September 22.
At the request oI NATO member state Turkey, since the beginning oI 2013, NATO has carried out
an air deIense mission along Turkey`s southeastern border with Syria, 'to augment Turkey`s air
deIence capabilities in order to deIend the population and territory oI Turkey and contribute to the
de-escalation oI the crisis along the Alliance`s border.¨ NATO oIIicials have emphasized that the
deployment oI six Patriot missile batteries 'is deIensive only. It will in no way support a no-Ily
zone or any oIIensive operation.¨
The United States, Germany, and the Netherlands are each
operating two Patriot batteries, deployed to military bases near the population centers oI
Gaziantep, Karamanmaras, and Adana, respectively.
Some Members oI Congress, as well as Air Force General Philip Breedlove, Supreme Allied
Commander, Europe, and Commander oI U.S. European Command (in his Senate conIirmation
hearing), have suggested that the Patriot batteries currently under NATO command could be used
to support oIIensive military operations against Asad, including the possible establishment oI a
no-Ily zone or a 'humanitarian corridor¨ to protect civilians. Although the allies have uniIormly
condemned the Asad regime, NATO has not considered establishment oI a no-Ily zone and key
allied oIIicials have reiterated that the Patriot deployment is deIensive only. Speaking on behalI oI
the allies on August 28, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen called the use oI
chemical weapons, 'a clear breach oI long-standing international norms and practice ... that
cannot go unanswered.¨
However, there does not appear to be a consensus within the alliance
on endorsing possible NATO-led oIIensive military operations against the Asad regime. Any
NATO operation would require the unanimous backing oI the member states, though not all
would be obliged to participate.
InIormation in this section comes Irom: OSC Report: InternationalWorldwide Views oI Possible Western Strike
on Syria, PLO2013082784193195, August 27, 2013; Charles Hawley, 'Syria Intervention May Endanger Merkel`s Re-
Election,¨ Spiegelonline, August 26, 2013.
NATO, 'First NATO Patriot Battery in Turkey Operational,¨ press release, January 26, 2013.
'NATO Secretary General Statement on North Atlantic Council Meeting on Syria,¨ August 28, 2013.
In the case oI NATO`s air operations under a U.N. Security Council mandate to protect civilians in Libya in 2011, all
28 member states endorsed the operation, though only 14 participated.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 3:
Eurnpcan Uninn
The EU has been a leading voice alongside the United States in international condemnation oI the
Asad regime and its actions in Syria`s armed conIlict. With a stronger U.N. response blocked by
Russia and China in the Security Council, the EU has moved ahead on the basis oI unanimous
agreement among its member states to impose extensive sanctions designed to put pressure on the
regime. Like the United States, in December 2012 the EU recognized the National Coalition oI
Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces as the sole legitimate representative oI the Syrian
people. AIter a British and French push to liIt the EU arms embargo on Syria in order to arm
opposition Iorces, the embargo was allowed to expire in May 2013 despite strong objections Irom
a number oI other EU countries. As a result, arms exports to the opposition could be authorized
on a national, case-by-case basis, with saIeguards intended to prevent misuse, although the EU
member states agreed to reIrain Irom such deliveries pending a review oI the situation. Similar to
NATO, there is no consensus among EU member states Ior military operations. In any case,
analysts have had no expectations that any such operations would be conducted under an EU
Since late 2011, the government oI Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been an
active opponent oI the Asad regime and has outspokenly advocated Ior U.N.-backed intervention.
It has hosted Syrian reIugees and opposition Iigures andreportedlyhelped Iunnel assistance
to armed Syrian rebel groups. Following the apparent August 21 chemical weapons attack,
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu indicated that Turkey would preIer a U.N. Security
Council mandate Ior military action in Syria, but would join an international coalition aIter the
U.N. presents its report on the August 21 incident iI a mandate cannot be obtained. On August 30,
Prime Minister Erdogan was quoted as saying that any strike on Syria should not be a '24 hours
hit-and-run. What matters is stopping the bloodshed in Syria and weakening the regime to the
point where it gives up.¨
Notwithstanding Erdogan`s stated preIerence Ior a broader military response than what U.S.
oIIicials appear to be contemplating, the nature and scope oI potential Turkish involvement is
Turkey maintains one oI NATO`s largest militaries, but political sensitivities and
potential vulnerabilities vis-a-vis bordering countries and Kurdish communities in the region
could constrain its direct participation in military operations. Turkey hosts U.S. and NATO
military assets in various locations throughout the country, which could be among the targets oI
potential Syrian or Syrian-allied retaliation Ior a U.S.-led attack.
Members oI the opposition
Republican People`s Party (CHP), though condemning the possible use oI chemical weapons in
NATO and the EU have overlapping but not identical membership. While both have 28 member countries, 22
countries belong to both, six belong to NATO but not the EU (Albania, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Turkey, and the
United States) and six belong to the EU but not NATO (Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden).
Joe Parkinson (citing Turkey`s state-run Anadolu Agency), 'Turkey`s Erdogan Urges Action to Oust Syrian
Regime,¨ wsf.com, August 30, 2013.
Piotr Zalewski, 'For Turkey, Planned U.S. Missile Strikes on Syria Not Good Enough,¨ time.com, August 30, 2013.
For more inIormation, see CRS Report R41368, Turkev. Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 31
Syria, have warned oI the risks oI military intervention and insisted that Turkish law requires
parliamentary approval oI any use oI Turkish territory by Ioreign troops to attack Syria.
Turkish parliament voted in 2003 against allowing the United States to invade Iraq Irom its
Turkish border.
Arab 5tatcs
Arab countries have staked diIIering positions on the Syrian civil war and have backed diIIerent
rebel/political groups, perpetuating the divisiveness and disorganization oI the armed and
unarmed Syrian opposition. Until recently, Qatar had aggressively backed the Syrian Muslim
Brotherhood in exile as well as various Islamist-oriented armed groups on the ground. There are
some indications that the recent leadership transition in Qatar may result in a recalibration oI
Doha`s Iormer embrace oI Islamist activists. Saudi Arabia, which also has backed its own
militias, has been less supportive oI more radical elements in the Syrian political and armed
opposition. Private entities in the Arab GulI states continue to provide material and political
support to extremist groups operating in Syria. Egypt, where the military has returned to power
aIter ousting a president who had hailed Irom the Muslim Brotherhood, may be even less inclined
than Saudi Arabia to support Sunni Islamist Syrian rebels, though it has been preoccupied with
internal issues throughout the war`s duration.
Publicly, many Arab states are hesitant to endorse a possible Western military intervention in
Syria. Nevertheless, on August 27, the Arab League, which had already suspended Syria Irom its
membership back in 2011, issued a joint statement on the apparent August 21 chemical weapons
attack, stating that it held 'the Syrian regime responsible Ior this heinous crime.¨ The statement
also called on the United Nations Security Council to 'overcome the disagreements between its
members`` |so it could| take the necessary deterring measures against the perpetrators oI this
crime.¨ The Arab League has modiIied its original position insisting on UN Security Council
action to call Ior the Security Council and the international community to 'take the deterrent and
necessary measures against the culprits oI this crime Ior which the Syrian regime bears
Israc! and Its Cnnccrn Inr Pntcntia! Rcta!iatinn
An important U.S. concern regarding possible military action against Syria is potential retaliation
by Syria and its alliesespecially Iran and Lebanon-based Hezbollah, but also possibly Gaza-
based militants such as Palestine Islamic Jihadagainst Israel. Possible threats oI retaliation
against other U.S. regional allies (including Turkey, Jordan, and GulI Arab states) are linked to
these countries` involvement in aiding the Syrian opposition and potentially serving as bases Ior
U.S.-led military operations. Even though Israel has reportedly carried out limited strikes in Syria
this year to prevent the transIer oI weapons to Hezbollah, retaliatory threats against it appear to
stem less Irom its recent involvement in the conIlict than Irom historical and geopolitical
Semih Idiz, 'Will Turkey`s Parliament Back Attack on Syria?,¨ Al-Monitor Turkev Pulse, August 27, 2013.
Prepared by Jeremy M. Sharp, Specialist in Middle Eastern AIIairs.
Prepared by Jim Zanotti, Specialist in Middle Eastern AIIairs; and Steven A. Hildreth, Specialist in Missile DeIense.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 32
animosities and probable desires among Syria and its allies to deter the United States Irom acting
militarilygiven long-standing U.S. interests in Israel`s security.
At least since the 1991 Persian GulI War, U.S. regional military planning has taken into account
the possibility oI attacks on Israel and the potential Ior any Israeli response to trigger wider
regional war.
In the present case, U.S. consideration oI this Iactor is seemingly being weighed
alongside concerns about possible consequences Ior Israel (in connection with overarching
questions about deIense oI U.S. allies and U.S. credibility) iI the U.S. does not respond robustly
to the Asad regime`s apparent use oI chemical weapons in Syria.
Israeli Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu has said, 'Now the whole world is watching. Iran is watching and it wants
to see what would be the reaction on the use oI chemical weapons.¨
Yet, most accounts indicate
that Israeli oIIicials 'have little desire to see |Asad| toppled,¨ given what may Iollow, and are
'wary oI creating any perception that they are meddling in either American politics or the civil
war in neighboring Syria.¨
Syrian and Iranian oIIicials have made statements indicating that Israel would be a target oI
retaliation in the event oI a U.S.-led attack on Syria. General Mohammad Ali JaIari, chieI oI the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), was quoted as saying that an attack on Syria 'means
the immediate destruction oI Israel.¨
In an August 28 Lebanese news report, a source
supposedly close to Hezbollah was cited as saying that Hezbollah would probably not retaliate
against Israel in the event oI a limited U.S.-led strike, but would likely retaliate in the event oI a
'large-scale Western strike¨ that aims to 'change the balance oI power in Syria.¨
An Israeli
military spokesman has publicly stated that although Israel is preparing Ior the contingency oI
Syrian or Syrian-allied retaliation against Israel in response to a U.S.-led strike, the probability oI
retaliation is low.
Israeli calculations that retaliation is possible but unlikely probably owes to a
presumption that Israel`s adversaries do not want to risk escalating and expanding the conIlict
beyond its current level and scope.
During the 1991 GulI War, Saddam Hussein`s Iraq inIlicted casualties (including two directly-caused deaths and
more than 1,000 injuries) and damage against Israel via SCUD missile attacks, but Israel did not respond militarily
largely due to U.S. entreaties and U.S. deployment in Israel oI Patriot anti-missile batteries.
'Full Transcript: Secretary oI State John Kerry`s remarks on Syria on Aug. 30,¨ op. cit.
JoseI Federman, 'With Eye on Iran, Israelis Seek US Action in Syria,¨ Associated Press, September 2, 2013.
Oren Dorell (citing the Tasnim news website), 'Iran threatens payback on Syria; Russia sends warships,¨ USA
Todav, August 30, 2013.
Hussein Dakroub, 'Hezbollah will attack Israel iI strike aims to topple Assad,¨ Dailv Star (Lebanon), August 28,
Gili Cohen, 'Senior military oIIicer: Likelihood oI attack on Israel is low,¨ haaret:.com, August 28, 2013. However,
at least one poll indicates that nearly two thirds oI Israeli Jews believe that a U.S.-led attack on Syria will 'drag Israel
into war.¨ Despite these results, the same poll suggests that nearly the same percentage supports a U.S.-led attack.
Aharon Lapidot, 'Poll: 67° oI Israeli Jews support US attack against Syria,¨ israelhavom.com, August 30, 2013.
See, e.g., Joshua Mitnick, 'Israel Worries Rise over a Syrian Attack,¨ Wall Street Journal, August 27, 2013.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 33
II one or more oI them chose to retaliate, Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and Gaza-based militants could
threaten Israeli territoryas indicated by the range maps (see below)with thousands oI rockets
and missiles oI varying ranges, accuracies and payloads (i.e., high-explosives or possible
chemical warheads in the case oI Syrian SCUDs). In addition to insisting that it would respond
IorceIully to any attack on its territory, Israel maintains multiple anti-rocket and anti-missile
platIorms largely through U.S. assistance and/or co-production: Iron Dome, Patriot, and Arrow
Israel claims substantial success with Iron Dome in countering rockets with ranges under
about 75 km. The Patriot and Arrow II systems are designed to intercept Syrian SCUD missiles
(ranges oI 300-500 km). Iranian SCUDs are not capable oI reaching Israel. It is unclear
whetherand perhaps unlikely thatPatriot or Arrow II systems are capable oI intercepting very
short range Hezbollah tactical missiles that could reach central and southern Israel. Reports
indicate that transportable Iron Dome batteries have been deployed near HaiIa, Tel Aviv,
Ashkelon, and Eilatwith two additional batteries available Ior deployment.
Although the U.S.-
Israel cooperative platIorm David`s Sling has supposedly been tested successIully against short-
range tactical missiles (40-300 km), this system is not expected to be operational until about
2014. It is possible that some David`s Sling units may have been deployed recently, but its
availability to counter missiles Irom Hezbollah is unknown. There are no systems currently
deployed in Israel that are designed to intercept Iranian medium-range ballistic missiles (1,500-
2,000 km). The Arrow III, which is designed to counter such missiles, had a successIul test launch
in 2013, but is not expected to be operational until about 2014-2015.
Israel is preparing additional measures on the home Iront to absorb a possible retaliatory strike. In
previous instances1991 during the GulI War, 2006 against Hezbollah, and on two occasions
(2008-2009 and November 2012) against Hamas and other Palestinian militantsmany Israelis
took cover in bomb shelters and in saIe rooms that are now routinely built into their residences.
According to reports, more than 50 Israeli civilians were directly killed by missile and rocket
strikes during these three conIlicts combined.
There are concerns, however, that the more
advanced missiles likely to be used in any retaliation Irom Iran, Syria, or Hezbollah could
produce casualties and damage oI a higher magnitude. In addition, a signiIicant portion oI the
population may not have ready access to bomb shelters, and logistical complications and expense
could delay Iull distribution oI gas masks, which large numbers oI Israelis are seeking in the
event oI a chemical weapons attack.
For more inIormation, see CRS Report RL33222, U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel , by Jeremy M. Sharp.
William Booth, 'Israel deploys Iron Dome deIense system ahead oI possible U.S. strike on Syria,¨ Washington Post,
August 30, 2013.
See, e.g., Joel Greenberg, 'Sense oI inevitable war grips Israel,¨ Washington Post, February 23, 2012. According to
inIormation provided by Israel`s embassy in Washington, DC on March 8, 2012, the Jerusalem Post reported on
January 7, 1992 that 72 Israeli civilians died indirectly Irom but as a consequence oI Iraqi SCUD missile attacks during
the 1991 GulI WarIour Irom gas mask suIIocation and 68 Irom heart attacks. Thousands oI Israeli civilians were
injured in the previous conIlicts combined, and the casualty numbers do not Iully measure psychological eIIects. The
combined cost in the Iour conIlicts oI property damage, civil deIense and military preparedness (including evacuation
and relocation oI civilians), and the inability oI many Israelis to work under emergency conditions is estimated to be in
the billions.
See, e.g., Reuven Pedatzur, 'Who`s in charge oI the home Iront?,¨ haaret:.com, September 2, 2013.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 34
+2$%0&@ 8lpartlsan Pollcy Center (February 2012), aoapteo by CRS.
N2.&:@ All ranges are appro×lmate.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 35
(calculateo trom posslble launcb sltes)
+2$%0&@ varlous, aoapteo by CRS.
Intense current speculation centers around the potential Ior punitive U.S.led military strike on
Syrian government Iorces. Any such action would have major implications Ior the ongoing
conIlict in Syria and the international crisis the conIlict has created. Given stated U.S. objectives
and Iears oI a deeper power vacuum in Syria, it appears unlikely that any U.S. actions in the
immediate Iuture would attempt to eliminate the Asad regime entirely. President Obama has said
'I have no interest in any kind oI open-ended conIlict in Syria,¨ and, at present, U.S. oIIicials
hope to achieve a negotiated political settlement to establish a new government that can keep the
Syrian state intact, secure its chemical weapon stockpiles, secure its borders, and prevent or
combat terrorism.
The importance oI the war in Syria Ior broader U.S. national security policy objectives may be
linked more to its consequences Ior regional and global stability than to the details and outcome
oI the Syrian conIlict itselI. The civil war has sharpened divisions between the United States and
some members oI the European Union on the one hand and Russia and China on the other over
competing concepts oI a how the international community should enIorce peace and security and
deIend international norms. In the wake oI the Libya conIlict, the latter countries have continually
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 36
opposed U.S. and European eIIorts to use the United Nations Security Council to endorse the
protection oI civilians in Syria.
The war also has raised concern that transnational terrorist groups modeled on Al Qaeda in
AIghanistan-Pakistan may be resurgent in Syria and may gain access to advanced conventional
weapons and weapons oI mass destruction. Additionally, the Syrian government`s alleged use oI
chemical weapons against its opponents and civilians is not only a serious development in the
Syrian conIlict but a potential precedent Ior other countries with possible chemical, biological, or
nuclear programs. How the United States and others respond in the days and weeks ahead will
most likely be watched closely in countries concerned with the potential Ior conIrontation over
similar programs in Iran and North Korea.
The war in Syria also has been a major dividing line within the United States over competing
visions oI U.S. Ioreign policy. Some commentators continue to assert that the American public is
'war-weary,¨ and that military intervention is inadvisable when public backing Ior expending
'blood and treasure¨ on an operation oI any duration and scope is uncertain. Others suggest that
U.S. global leadership is needed more than ever to steer the country and its people away Irom
what some see as isolationist tendencies. According to a NBC news survey conducted August 28-
29, almost 80° oI Americans believe the Administration should seek congressional approval
beIore using Iorce in Syria. The poll also indicated that although 50° oI Americans believe the
United States should not intervene in Syria even aIter the August 21 attack, 50° oI respondents
were supportive oI military action limited to launching cruise missiles44° opposed it.
Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress
!"#$%&''("#)* ,&'&)%-. /&%0(-& 37
Authnr Cnntact InInrmatinn
Jeremy M. Sharp, Coordinator
Specialist in Middle Eastern AIIairs
jsharp¸crs.loc.gov, 7-8687
Dianne E. Rennack
Specialist in Foreign Policy Legislation
drennack¸crs.loc.gov, 7-7608
Christopher M. Blanchard, Coordinator
Specialist in Middle Eastern AIIairs
cblanchard¸crs.loc.gov, 7-0428
Marshall C. Erwin
Analyst in Intelligence and National Security
merwin¸crs.loc.gov, 7-7739
Mary Beth D. Nikitin
Specialist in NonproliIeration
mnikitin¸crs.loc.gov, 7-7745
Luisa BlanchIield
Specialist in International Relations
lblanchIield¸crs.loc.gov, 7-0856
Jim Zanotti
Specialist in Middle Eastern AIIairs
jzanotti¸crs.loc.gov, 7-1441
Jim Nichol
Specialist in Russian and Eurasian AIIairs
jnichol¸crs.loc.gov, 7-2289
Matthew C. Weed
Analyst in Foreign Policy Legislation
mweed¸crs.loc.gov, 7-4589
Rhoda Margesson
Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy
rmargesson¸crs.loc.gov, 7-0425
Derek E. Mix
Analyst in European AIIairs
dmix¸crs.loc.gov, 7-9116
Susan B. Epstein
Specialist in Foreign Policy
sepstein¸crs.loc.gov, 7-6678
Paul Belkin
Analyst in European AIIairs
pbelkin¸crs.loc.gov, 7-0220
Marjorie Ann Browne
Specialist in International Relations
mbrowne¸crs.loc.gov, 7-7695
Amy Belasco
Specialist in U.S. DeIense Policy and Budget
abelasco¸crs.loc.gov, 7-7627
Nathan J. Lucas
Section Research Manager
nlucas¸crs.loc.gov, 7-3564
Susan V. Lawrence
Specialist in Asian AIIairs
slawrence¸crs.loc.gov, 7-2577
Steven A. Hildreth
Specialist in Missile DeIense
shildreth¸crs.loc.gov, 7-7635