Syria has seemingly crossed a line it was warned not to, as France claimed it has proof that the Al-Assad regime has used the chemical weapon sarin gas on its own people.
Last August, Barack Obama declared Damascus would be crossing a “red line” if it were to use or move chemical or biological weapons during its civil war against Syrian rebels.
If it indeed cross that line, Obama said he would rethink his position on a military intervention in the country.
Now, it seems that the US is reluctant to admit that the proof offered by the French is substantial enough.
Could this be because it doesn’t want to commit to another war in the Middle East?
And why were the French so eager to prove the existence of chemical weapon use in Syria?
I spoke to geopolitical and strategic analyst from SAGE International Dr John Bruni to see his thoughts for a story for The Wire.
He told the program in as early as March that the US would not risk another military intervention in the Middle East and so would not live up to its threats.
Today, he explained to me the diplomatic function of drawing red lines, the difficulty in establishing proof about the purported use of chemical weapons, the political rationale behind the French trying to out the chemical weapons usage and why the US is unlikely to punish Syria for overstepping the “red line” it warned it not to.