Obama's Red Line: Syria, Chemical Weapons, and Military Action
This paper examines President Obama's 2012 "red line" declaration regarding Syria's use of chemical weapons and his subsequent 2013 request for congressional authorization to pursue limited military action against the Assad regime. The paper identifies the key protagonists supporting intervention — including France and U.S. Senators McCain and Graham — and the antagonists opposing it, such as Russia, China, Assad, and significant segments of U.S. public opinion. The paper concludes with a critical reflection on the ethics and logic of international norms against chemical weapons, questioning whether such distinctions are meaningful in the broader context of mass casualties in Syria's civil war.
- Obama's Red Line and the Proposed Military Action: Obama's 2013 request for limited military action in Syria
- Protagonists Supporting Military Intervention: France, McCain, and Graham support intervention
- Antagonists Opposing the President's Proposal: Russia, China, Assad, and U.S. public oppose action
- A Critical Perspective on the Chemical Weapons Red Line: Author questions logic of chemical weapons prohibitions
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses a clear four-part structure — proposal, supporters, opponents, personal stance — that organizes a complex geopolitical debate into manageable analytical sections.
- Integrates direct quotations from primary actors (Obama, Hollande, McCain, Assad) to ground claims in documented statements rather than paraphrase alone.
- The concluding section introduces a provocative hypothetical (North Korean invasion) to challenge the logic of chemical weapons prohibitions, demonstrating willingness to question consensus positions.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates stakeholder analysis — a core technique in political science and policy studies — by systematically identifying and evaluating the positions, motivations, and rationales of each party involved in the Syria intervention debate. Each section builds on the prior one, moving from the policy proposal to its supporters, its opponents, and finally a normative evaluation.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into four short analytical sections, each addressing a distinct prompt question: (1) what action Obama proposed and why; (2) who supported it and why; (3) who opposed it and why; and (4) where the author personally stands. This question-and-answer architecture keeps the argument focused and clearly separates descriptive analysis from normative commentary. The reference list cites two Christian Science Monitor articles and a CNN report, all from 2013.
Obama's Red Line and the Proposed Military Action
In 2012, U.S. President Barack Obama drew a "red line" when he stated that the use of chemical weapons by Syria would not be tolerated by the international community. This declaration came in response to an announcement by Syrian officials acknowledging that they possessed chemical weapons and would use them in the event of "foreign intervention" in Syria's civil war (Grier, 2013). According to Grier (2013), Syria had not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention — the international treaty that outlaws the production, storage, and use of poison gas — and was believed to possess hundreds of tons of mustard gas, blister agents, and nerve agents, which could include sarin and the agent VX (p. 37).
In response to a report that chemical weapons had killed 2,000 Syrian civilians, President Obama sought approval from the U.S. Congress to pursue "a limited military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad [but] any military attack would not be open-ended or include U.S. ground forces" (cited in Shoichet & Watkins, 2013, para. 2). The military action requested of Congress would be designed "to deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade the potential for future uses of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction" (cited in Shoichet & Watkins, 2013, para. 1).
Protagonists Supporting Military Intervention
In response to the use of outlawed chemical weapons against Syrian civilians by President Bashar Assad and his regime, the main protagonists that emerged in support of the president's proposal were France and U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain. French President François Hollande agreed with President Obama that "the international community must deliver a resolute message to the Assad regime — and others who would consider using chemical weapons — that these crimes are unacceptable and those who violate this international norm will be held accountable by the world" (cited in Shoichet & Watkins, 2013, para. 1).
Likewise, in April 2013, Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) responded to the chemical attacks by calling for the same types of interventions that had been used in European conflicts in the past. According to McCain, "Now I hope the administration will consider what we have been recommending now for over two years of this bloodletting and massacre — and that is to provide a safe area for the opposition to operate, to establish a no-fly zone, and provide weapons to the people in the resistance who we trust" (cited in Mulrine, 2013, p. 19).
References
Grier, P. (2013, April 26). Syria chemical weapons: Where did they come from? The Christian Science Monitor, 37.
Mulrine, A. (2013, April 26). Syria chemical weapons: Pentagon weighs evidence, plans response. The Christian Science Monitor, 19.
Shoichet, C. E., & Watkins, T. (2013, August 31). Strike against Syria? Obama backs it, but wants Congress to vote. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/31/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.