Obama is a Disgraceful Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

President Obama helped Syria violate Geneva Protocol of 1925, Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 and violated them himself. Investors Business Daily explains how Obama's secret negotiations with Tehran and his "red line" posturing on Syria led to this violation of a treaty obligation:

Obama issued his crucial statement in Stockholm on Aug. 20: ". .. a red line for us is (sic) we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus."

Much has been written about the "red line" threat and the implications of not acting on it. Yet it is the other part of the sentence that has had dramatic significance by establishing a quantitative threshold, "a whole bunch," before the U.S. would respond to chemical weapons use. Less than a "whole bunch" of chemical weapons, the president signaled, would not elicit consequences.

The U.S. therefore repeatedly refrained from reacting to limited deployments of gas by Syria. On Dec. 23, seven people died in Homs. On March 19, 25 people were killed by gas in Aleppo and Damascus, and many more were injured.

A further attack took place at Adra, near Damascus, leading to two deaths and 23 injuries. Other incidents followed. Washington did nothing.

Facing multiple gas attacks, the opposition asked the U.S. for the autoinjectors that U.S. troops carry to protect themselves against sarin. The administration again said no. Providing the opposition with an anti-sarin device would have amounted to a public concession that the Assad regime was waging gas warfare.

The political consequences of such a disclosure could have derailed the Iran negotiations. In pursuit of its top priority, the deal with Tehran, the administration chose to turn a blind eye to the developing chemical warfare in Syria.

U.S. policy did not only countenance low-level use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime for more than a year; it also did so with the explicit and highly public imprimatur of the president.

Because the victims only numbered in the tens or twenties, the use of poison gas by the regime did not trigger the threshold announced by the president with his "whole bunch" statement.

An Obama doctrine has effectively been established that allows for low-level chemical warfare. Yet Assad's limited chemical warfare paved the way to Aug. 21, 2013, when the poison gas deployment underwent a quantum leap, leading to 1,429 deaths.

Neither the Geneva Protocol of 1925 nor the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 allows for limited gas warfare. Neither includes any quantitative trigger: Gas warfare of any scope is prohibited. By conveying the acceptability of low-level use of chemical weapons, Obama has weakened these pillars of international law.

It is important to remember that the Convention specifically obligates its signatories "never under any circumstances ... to assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited" by the Convention.

The Obama administration's signaling to the Assad regime that limited chemical warfare would be acceptable is clearly at odds with the Convention.


President Obama helped Syria violate Geneva Protocol of 1925, Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 and violated them himself. Investors Business Daily explains how Obama's secret negotiations with Tehran and his "red line" posturing on Syria led to this violation of a treaty obligation:

Obama issued his crucial statement in Stockholm on Aug. 20: ". .. a red line for us is (sic) we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus."

Much has been written about the "red line" threat and the implications of not acting on it. Yet it is the other part of the sentence that has had dramatic significance by establishing a quantitative threshold, "a whole bunch," before the U.S. would respond to chemical weapons use. Less than a "whole bunch" of chemical weapons, the president signaled, would not elicit consequences.

The U.S. therefore repeatedly refrained from reacting to limited deployments of gas by Syria. On Dec. 23, seven people died in Homs. On March 19, 25 people were killed by gas in Aleppo and Damascus, and many more were injured.

A further attack took place at Adra, near Damascus, leading to two deaths and 23 injuries. Other incidents followed. Washington did nothing.

Facing multiple gas attacks, the opposition asked the U.S. for the autoinjectors that U.S. troops carry to protect themselves against sarin. The administration again said no. Providing the opposition with an anti-sarin device would have amounted to a public concession that the Assad regime was waging gas warfare.

The political consequences of such a disclosure could have derailed the Iran negotiations. In pursuit of its top priority, the deal with Tehran, the administration chose to turn a blind eye to the developing chemical warfare in Syria.

U.S. policy did not only countenance low-level use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime for more than a year; it also did so with the explicit and highly public imprimatur of the president.

Because the victims only numbered in the tens or twenties, the use of poison gas by the regime did not trigger the threshold announced by the president with his "whole bunch" statement.

An Obama doctrine has effectively been established that allows for low-level chemical warfare. Yet Assad's limited chemical warfare paved the way to Aug. 21, 2013, when the poison gas deployment underwent a quantum leap, leading to 1,429 deaths.

Neither the Geneva Protocol of 1925 nor the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 allows for limited gas warfare. Neither includes any quantitative trigger: Gas warfare of any scope is prohibited. By conveying the acceptability of low-level use of chemical weapons, Obama has weakened these pillars of international law.

It is important to remember that the Convention specifically obligates its signatories "never under any circumstances ... to assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited" by the Convention.

The Obama administration's signaling to the Assad regime that limited chemical warfare would be acceptable is clearly at odds with the Convention.


RECENT VIDEOS