U.S. Sets Stage for Bigger Syria Role

By ADAM ENTOUS
SAM DAGHER

NurPhoto/Zuma Press

A child walks between dusty tents in a refugee camp set up in Iraq. The U.N. says the number of children fleeing Syria has now reached one million.

The Obama administration hardened its stance against Syria and stepped up plans for possible military action, dismissing as too late the regime's offer to let United Nations officials inspect areas where the U.S. believes Damascus used chemical weapons last week.

Syria in the Spotlight

Track the latest events in a map, see the key players and a chronology of the unrest.

View Graphics

The White House and Pentagon signaled the U.S. wasn't backing away from a possible showdown despite apparent efforts by the Syrian government to ease tensions by letting U.N. inspectors visit areas near the capital where hundreds were killed, allegedly by chemical weapons.
If he decides to act militarily, Mr. Obama would prefer to do so with U.N. Security Council backing, but officials said he could decide to work instead with international partners such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the Arab League.
"We'll consult with the U.N. They're an important avenue. But they're not the only avenue," a senior administration official said.
In recent days, the Pentagon has moved more warships into place in the eastern Mediterranean and U.S. war planners have updated military options that include cruise-missile strikes on regime targets, officials said. The White House held high-level meetings over the weekend, but officials said late Sunday that Mr. Obama had yet to decide how to proceed.
The U.S. had urged the Syrians to let U.N. inspectors visit the areas that were bombarded on Wednesday in suspected chemical attacks that opposition groups said killed more than 1,000 people. But the U.S. concluded that evidence at the scene has since been compromised due to continued Syrian shelling and the likely dissipation of any poison gases.

WSJ's Adam Entous and Carol E. Lee lay out the options facing President Obama in Syria, as he gets even more pressure to step up U.S. involvement and oust President Assad after the regime's alleged mass use of chemical weapons. Photo: AP

The administration also stepped up its diplomatic outreach to European and Middle Eastern allies this weekend in what officials described as an effort to build a consensus. A day after consulting with British Prime Minister David Cameron, Mr. Obama spoke Sunday with French President François Hollande about "possible responses by the international community," the White House said.
Administration lawyers have been crafting legal justifications for an intervention without U.N. approval that could be based on findings that Mr. Assad used chemical weapons and created a major humanitarian crisis.

More on Syria

• Veteran Saudi Power Player Works to Build Support to Topple Assad
• U.S. Lawmakers Call for Response to Rising Evidence
• Tensions Rise as U.S. Nears Determination on Syria Attack
• Aid Group Says Syria Deaths Suggest Chemical Attack
• Networks of Spies Aid Syria Gas Probe
• Navy Moves Ships as U.S. Preps for 'All Contingencies'

The developments reflect a striking shift in tone by the administration that could signal growing support for military action. The White House has guarded against deep U.S. involvement since the start of the civil war in Syria in 2011. But over the past year, Mr. Obama has authorized an expanding Central Intelligence Agency role amid signs that Mr. Assad was prevailing with the help of his allies Iran and Hezbollah of Lebanon, officials said.
A final assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies on Mr. Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons could be completed soon, clearing the way for Mr. Obama to decide how to respond. Statements Sunday by senior officials and lawmakers suggested the White House was closer than ever to a decision to strike.
The White House hasn't said which chemical agents it believes were used nor how many people it believes were killed in the alleged chemical-arms attack. That determination could be a major factor for Mr. Obama in deciding what to do, officials said.
A senior administration official stressed that Mr. Obama could act now because of the scale of casualties in last week's incident. Previously, the U.S. accused Mr. Assad of using of chemical weapons only on a small scale.
British, French, Turkish and Israeli officials also have accused the Syrian regime in the suspected chemical attack.
Syria has denied using chemical weapons, and a Syrian army spokesman said Saturday that it found chemicals in liquid form and U.S.-made gas masks in a rebel hideout. The spokesman said this constituted "definitive proof" that it was rebels who used the chemical weapons last week, not the Syrian military.
Syria's Minister of Information Omran al-Zoubi, speaking on a Lebanese news channel, warned Saturday against a military strike. "The chaos and the ball of fire and flames will consume not only Syria but the entire Middle East," he said.
The White House's reluctance to intervene more forcefully in Syria over the last 2½ years has fueled criticism from some U.S. lawmakers and regional allies.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, traveling in Malaysia, said Sunday that the U.S. was weighing both the risks of taking action as well as the costs of not acting. Mr. Hagel said it was critical for the U.S. government and its allies to determine "what would be the objective" of any actions against the Syrian government.
Officials cautious of intervening say targeted strikes to punish Mr. Assad for using chemical weapons risk triggering a bloody escalation. If the regime digs in and uses chemical weapons again, or launches retaliatory attacks against the U.S. and its allies in the region, Mr. Obama will come under fierce pressure to respond more forcefully, increasing the chances of full-scale war, the officials say.
In keeping with Mr. Obama's goal of avoiding deep U.S. involvement, the leading military options presented to the White House wouldn't require American warplanes to fly through Syria's heavily guarded airspace, officials briefed on the plans say.
Rather, the options call for pinpoint strikes with cruise missiles, most likely from warships that have been moved into the eastern Mediterranean, within striking distance of Damascus.
Officials who support intervening say the biggest danger for the U.S. would be for Mr. Obama to threaten to take military action now and then not follow through. They say Mr. Assad would interpret inaction by the U.S. as a green light to step up his offensive and use chemical weapons in the conflict on a wider scale.
Arab officials have told their American counterparts that the U.S. needs to intervene now because failure to do so will be interpreted by Iran as a sign that the U.S. will do nothing to stop Tehran from building a nuclear bomb.
A guiding principle for Mr. Obama has been to take steps in Syria with the least risk of drawing the U.S. into the conflict, which has become a messy regional proxy war in which fighters linked to al Qaeda play an increasingly important part in the fight against Mr. Assad. The U.S. wants Mr. Assad to go but doesn't want to empower the Islamists either, officials and diplomats say.
U.S. and Arab officials who advocate limited American strikes say they won't only send a message to Mr. Assad's forces that chemical weapons use won't be tolerated but could create rifts within the Syrian regime and military that could undercut Mr. Assad's hold on power down the road.
Russia put Washington on notice Sunday that it would oppose any unilateral military action in Syria. The Russian Foreign Ministry drew a parallel between reports of chemical-weapons use and Washington's 2003 intervention in Iraq following what proved to be unfounded U.S. accusations that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's government had weapons of mass destruction.
In the past, U.N. Security Council resolutions seeking to punish Mr. Assad have been blocked by Russia, which was critical of the NATO-led mission in Libya in 2011.
Administration lawyers have, however, developed alternative legal approaches that Mr. Obama could opt to use to justify a military intervention without U.N. backing, including a finding that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons contrary to "established international norms," officials said. Administration lawyers based these approaches on President Bill Clinton's justification for the Kosovo bombing campaign in 1999, which wasn't authorized by the U.N. Security Council.
On Sunday, the U.N. said its inspection team was preparing to start its fact-finding mission on Monday after Syria said it would allow U.N. personnel now in Damascus immediate access to the affected areas.
Syrian state television, airing a statement attributed to the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said agreement was reached following a meeting between Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem and Angela Kane, the U.N. disarmament chief, who arrived in Damascus on Saturday. The Syrian statement said the timing of the visit would be coordinated between the U.N. team led by Swedish scientist Ake Sellstrom and the Syrian government.
However, it wasn't clear how the U.N. team would be able to start the work given the continuing military campaign. All areas in question have been sealed off by the military and strenuous restrictions were imposed at checkpoints.
Human-rights groups say victims of Wednesday's attack bear the hallmarks of sarin nerve gas. Doctors Without Borders said over the weekend that three opposition-run hospitals it supports in Damascus reported receiving about 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms" over less than three hours on Wednesday. Of those, 355 died, the Paris-based group said.
U.S. officials said the Syrian regime's unwillingness to allow inspectors to enter the area over the past five days has degraded their ability to conduct a thorough assessment.
"If the Syrian government had nothing to hide and wanted to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons in this incident, it would have ceased its attacks on the area and granted immediate access to the U.N. five days ago," a senior White House official said.
"At this juncture, the belated decision by the regime to grant access to the U.N. team is too late to be credible, including because the evidence available has been significantly corrupted as a result of the regime's persistent shelling and other intentional actions over the last five days," the official added.
The official said that—based on the reported number of victims, the reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured and other information—"there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident."
— Julian E. Barnes in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
and Gary Fields and Carol E. Lee in Washington contributed
to this article.