AFTER seven years of war and hundreds of thousands of deaths, it takes an act of utter barbarism to shock the world out of its indifference. But every so often, Bashar al-Assad supplies one. On April 7th more than 40 Syrians were killed with poisonous gas in the town of Douma. Videos showed men, women and children lying lifeless, with foam dribbling over their lips. Such horrors are why most countries outlawed the use of chemical weapons long ago—and why Syria’s despot flouts that ban. He has carried out dozens of chemical attacks over the course of Syria’s war, sowing terror in rebel-held areas. The world should not let him get away with it.
As The Economist went to press, America and its allies were considering responding to the atrocity in Douma with military action. If they are convinced of the evidence against Mr Assad (who denies responsibility), then they should punish him hard enough to deter him from gassing his people again. That will take more than a flurry of cruise missiles. Air strikes should be aimed at the dictator’s chemical-weapons plants and command-and-control centres. Turning one of his palaces to rubble (after a suitable warning to let civilians escape) would give ordinary Syrians visible evidence of the disgust the world feels for their ruler.
Some argue that a bombing campaign would merely prolong Syria’s war, which Mr Assad, regrettably, has all but won. Rebels control only a few pockets of territory in the north and south and are largely cut off from international support. Deterrence has already failed, say others, and hitting the dictator again might provoke a response from Russia, which has threatened to shoot down American missiles and fire at their launchers. More risks come with the man in charge of the mission, President Donald Trump. His Syria policy is scandalously inconsistent (see article). Only last month he indicated he would withdraw American troops, saying “Let the other people take care of it now.”
The costs of inaction
These are serious concerns. But they do not justify inaction, which would embolden Mr Assad to commit more atrocities. In the past, a failure to act has had precisely this effect. Barack Obama called the use of chemical weapons a “red line”. Yet when Mr Assad used Sarin nerve gas to kill 1,400 civilians in Ghouta in 2013, Mr Obama did too little, settling for a disarmament deal that Mr Assad quickly broke. Mild punishments have not worked, either. When Mr Assad used Sarin again last year, Mr Trump launched 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian air base, and then stopped. That did not deter the attack on Douma.
Mr Assad’s next target is rebel-held Idlib, where thousands of civilians are hunkered down—and where new chemical massacres are likely if nothing is done. Hitting him hard enough to prevent such horror runs the risk of provoking Vladimir Putin, Russia’s leader and Mr Assad’s protector. Care should therefore be taken to avoid killing Russians. Existing “deconfliction” arrangements should be used to give Russian commanders warning of imminent attacks, and thus a chance to get their men out of the way. America should make it clear that it wishes to avoid a direct confrontation with another nuclear power. Such a campaign will require nerve and precision. Even with both, it is not without risks.
Yet it is the least bad option. Syria has made a mockery of the UN’s Chemical Weapons Convention, which Russia and Mr Assad himself have signed. If such agreements are to be taken seriously, they must be enforced. Alas, the UN cannot perform this task as long as Russia wields its veto at the Security Council. So the burden falls on countries that believe that the rules-based international order is worth upholding.
Mr Trump champions such rules only when it suits him. Nonetheless, he is right to argue that Mr Assad should pay a “big price” for his crimes, and he deserves credit for calling out Iran and Russia for backing Syria’s tyrant. If he means what he says, he will not be alone. Countries as diverse as France and Saudi Arabia are urging that Mr Assad be held accountable.
Punishing the use of chemical weapons will not end the suffering in Syria, or unseat Mr Assad. But if the taboo on chemical weapons is allowed to fade away, other despots will be tempted to use them, too. And war, already vile, will become even more so.
