Obama, Syria, and the perils of 'red line' declarations


In his weekly address, President Obama makes the case for limited and targeted military action to hold the Assad regime accountable for its violation of international norms prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, September 7, 2013.

Amidst a heated and confused debate on the question of U.S. intervention in Syria, President Obama made one of his infrequent appearances before the press to explain the red line he laid down more than a year ago regarding the use of chemical weapons. “First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line,” Obama said.

Setting aside the fact that this is, at best, a tortured locution (as the president did indeed say, “a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized”), Obama’s attempt to rewrite his own rhetoric has obscured an important lesson: Red lines are too often idle threats that hamstring the good guys without constraining the bad.

Predictability in international affairs is a virtue.  

The better rogue nations understand the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, the less likely they will transgress. 

It is this principle that drives the United Nations collective to sign treaties, lay down markers and otherwise insist – most often with no enforcing mechanism – that things like nuclear weapons proliferation, chemical and biological weapons production and use, and other objectionable things like torture and genocide are verboten. 

But failure to enforce those norms is the rule rather than the exception. Bashar al-Assad has been murdering by the tens of thousands -- nominal crimes against humanity -- facing little other than verbal censure. 

Iran, North Korea and others have violated numerous treaties without facing military action, at least not yet.  And so, it flows naturally that most fail to take seriously the strictures of international treaties and norms.

Clearly, this happens at the country level as well.  Both the United States and Israel have set numerous red lines regarding Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons programs. 

Over the last decade, those red lines have changed repeatedly, moving to accommodate Iran’s progress towards a nuclear weapons arsenal.  Not surprisingly, only when faced with the specter of imminent military action, have the Iranians hesitated slightly with their onward march.

But there is another, more pernicious element to the red line ultimatum: The authority laying down his marker also has a problem once his imaginary tripwire is triggered. 

He must either admit frankly that a red line has been crossed, and act accordingly, or he must enter into a silent partnership with the transgressor, insisting there is no actionable information. 

Obama effectively partnered with Assad in April 2013, insisting it was not clear that chemical weapons had been used by the Syrian dictator. 

Similarly over the years, Bill Clinton joined with then Palestinian Liberation Organization leader in insisting that the PLO was not violating U.S. law by engaging in terrorism; George Bush sided with the Government of Pakistan in insisting Islamabad was not harboring or supporting terrorists, which would have led to a cut off of aid; and Israel has silently teamed up with the Iranian regime to insist that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s red lines on nuclear enrichment have not been crossed.  (They have.)

So too, Obama made his pronouncement regarding Syrian use of chemical weapons in August of 2012, in the context of an election in which he was being accused of being weak on national security.  

The remark, widely reported as being off the cuff and beyond the president’s intended talking points, had the effect of constraining Obama (and not, apparently, Assad). Once faced with the obvious and wanton use of chemical weapons by the Syrian dictator, Obama had to act or risk looking a fool.

The president clearly realized his dilemma when he responded to reports of 1,400 dead in the suburbs of Damascus in late August.  He could not fudge the question of whether his red line had been crossed as he did after the earlier chemical weapons attack.  Small wonder, then, that having tested the president once and succeeded, Assad believed he could do so again with impunity.

In a perfect world, a red line laid down by a credible and powerful nation or set of nations would provide a deterrent to bad actors. But this is not a perfect world, and when the will to enforce red lines is so clearly in doubt, it’s time to consider the wisdom of drawing them in the first place.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author



  • As a long-time Senate Committee on Foreign Relation senior professional staff member for the Near East and South Asia, Danielle Pletka was the point person on Middle East, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan issues. As the vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at AEI, Pletka writes on national security matters with a focus on Iran and weapons proliferation, the Middle East, Syria, Israel and the Arab Spring. She also studies and writes about South Asia: Pakistan, India and Afghanistan.

    Pletka is the co-editor of “Dissent and Reform in the Arab World: Empowering Democrats” (AEI Press, 2008) and the co-author of “Containing and Deterring a Nuclear Iran” (AEI Press, 2011) and “Iranian influence in the Levant, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan” (AEI Press, 2012). Her most recent study, “America vs. Iran: The competition for the future of the Middle East,” was published in January 2014.


    Follow Danielle Pletka on Twitter.

  • Phone: 202-862-5943
    Email: dpletka@aei.org
  • Assistant Info

    Name: Alexandra Della Rocchetta
    Phone: 202-862-7152
    Email: alex.dellarocchetta@aei.org

What's new on AEI

image The money in banking: Comparing salaries of bank and bank regulatory employees
image What Obama should say about China in Japan
image A key to college success: Involved dads
image China takes the fight to space
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Graduation day: How dads’ involvement impacts higher education success

Join a diverse group of panelists — including sociologists, education experts, and students — for a discussion of how public policy and culture can help families lay a firmer foundation for their children’s educational success, and of how the effects of paternal involvement vary by socioeconomic background.

Event Registration is Closed
Thursday, April 24, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Getting it right: A better strategy to defeat al Qaeda

This event will coincide with the release of a new report by AEI’s Mary Habeck, which analyzes why current national security policy is failing to stop the advancement of al Qaeda and its affiliates and what the US can do to develop a successful strategy to defeat this enemy.

Friday, April 25, 2014 | 9:15 a.m. – 1:15 p.m.
Obamacare’s rocky start and uncertain future

During this event, experts with many different views on the ACA will offer their predictions for the future.   

No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.