If rebels carried out chemical attacks in Syria, how would the US respond?

[cqo_000]

The Administration says the use of chemical weapons is a 'red line,' and would require a significant U.S. response. Do you think the US would launch military strikes on the rebels if "clear and compelling" evidence is found that they used poison gas?

IMO the use of chemical weapons is not really a "red line" issue for the US. As was recently reported, the US was helping Iraq while it carried out chemical attacks on Iran. So I think Obama would find some excuse to avoid attacking the rebels because the bottom line is: the US will side with whoever supports US interests no matter how brutal their methods.

[The Straight Story]

1. The rebels don't support our interests

And if they used them we could most easily retaliate by given military/financial aid to assad. Get Turkish troops to cover the northern border, Work with iraq to cover western, israel has the south, and we have the Mediterranean should the rebels get some row boats. They would have no where to flee to.

We obviously have no love loss for assad but the rebels would be worse in power (and I think short lived given that Israel seems to have no problem striking them from time to time as it is).

Drawing in the US, who has a thing for droning people in Al Qaida, would not be a good idea for the rebels. Say we take out assad and his aerial defense systems, then it would be easy pickings for our air force on them (where would they even get decent pilots if they did win and took over the country and it's fighter jets? How many of them have the technical skills for radar/SAMs/and maintaining all of that equipment?)

Assad though, he is not overly rational - using chemical weapons again is par for the course. He has nothing to lose. He kills rebels with them, there are less of them. He has the Russians to back them up with a veto at UN so he knows the UN will do nothing. Israel stays out it unless they feel threatened. The US is war weary so he is betting we won't do anything (and last time we did something, in 2012 it didn't amount to much: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18914578 because of the already mentioned veto powers).

So he asks himself "What is anybody going to do if I kill tons of folks? Nothing" if the rebels were doing this he could pull in either the US or the Russians (even though we don't like him there were would be the moral obligations to stop the use of chemical weapons) to give him aid. Which, I am guessing, is why he is trying to play the victim. Given his history though of late I doubt many are buying it (except people who are sympathetic to Al Qaida and see them as the victims).

[David__77]

2. They would promptly condemn Assad, of course.

...