The Obama administration on Syria, 2009-2017

Federal Issues
Executive powers Barack Obama: Vetoed legislation • Executive clemency and presidential pardons
Foreign affairs Iran nuclear agreement: U.S. withheld cash until hostages were released • Congressional investigation of CENTCOM’s intelligence reports on the Islamic State • Iran nuclear agreement: An overview • Bowe Bergdahl exchange • ISIS insurgency in Iraq and Syria • Terrorist attack on U.S. mission in Benghazi, 2012
Economy The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal: An overview • The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
Natural resources Keystone XL Pipeline political timeline
Healthcare Obamacare overview • Obamacare lawsuits
Immigration President Obama's Immigration Accountability Executive Actions
Abortion Republican effort to defund Planned Parenthood, 2015
Have you subscribed yet? Join the hundreds of thousands of readers trusting Ballotpedia to keep them up to date with the latest political news. Sign up for the Daily Brew. Click here to learn more.

This page is an aggregation of statements from various members of the Obama administration on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian civil war.

Background[edit]

In March 2011, pro-democracy protests evolved in Damascus and Daraa, where political prisoners were held for speaking out against President Bashar al-Assad Assad's Ba'ath party regime. As the protests grew more popular, government security forces detained some protesters and opened fire on others in Daraa. In May 2011, the United States ordered sanctions against the Syrian government for human rights violations, but Assad continued his assault on the protesters throughout Syria, which left thousands dead, according to the United Nations.^[1][2]

Throughout the rest of 2011 and until July 2012, the U.S. withdrew ambassadors and diplomats from Syria while the rebels continued to fight with pro-Assad forces. In July 2012, the Syrian government threatened the use of biological and chemical weapons if outside forces invaded the country. The following month, President Barack Obama said that if biological or chemical weapons were used, the U.S. would reconsider its opposition to military involvement in Syria. On August 21, 2013, the Syrian government was accused of a chemical weapons attack on a town in the suburbs of Damascus, killing thousands.^[3]

On August 31, 2013, Obama announced that he would ask Congress to vote on the use of military force in Syria in response to Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons. He said, “This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. . . . It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.”^[4]

On September 14, 2013, before Congress could vote on the use of military force in Syria, the U.S. and Russia reached a preliminary agreement requiring Syria to eliminate of all its chemical weapons material and equipment in the first half of 2014.^[5][6]

Statements of Obama administration officials[edit]

President Barack Obama[edit]

2016[edit]

• December 16, 2016: During his end-of-year news conference, Obama discussed his administration's decision to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict in Syria, rather than intervening militarily. He said, “Around the world as well, there are hotspots where disputes have been intractable, conflicts have flared up and people — innocent people — are suffering as a result, and nowhere is this more terribly true than in the city of Aleppo. For years, we’ve worked to stop the civil war in Syria and alleviate human suffering. It has been one of the hardest issues that I’ve faced as president. The world, as we speak, is united in horror at the savage assault by the Syrian regime and its Russia and Iranian allies on the city of Aleppo. ... It should be clear that although you may achieve tactical victories over the long term, the Assad regime cannot slaughter its way to legitimacy. That’s why we’ll continue to press for a transition to a more representative government, and that’s why the world must not avert our eyes to the terrible events that unfolding. The Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian allies are trying to obfuscate the truth. The world should not be fooled, and the world will not forget.”^[7]

2013[edit]

• September 10, 2013: In a speech, Obama explained his decision to ask Congress to authorize targeted airstrikes against the Assad regime for using chemical weapons. He said, "The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use." He said that he had avoided military action in Syria, but "[t]he situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits -- a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war."^[8]

• Evidence that Assad used chemical weapons: Obama said, "No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack, and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas. Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gasmasks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded. We know senior figures in Assad’s military machine reviewed the results of the attack, and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. We’ve also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin."^[8]

• On why Assad's use of chemical weapons was a threat to the international community: "If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians. If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran -- which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path. This is not a world we should accept."^[8]

• On whether the strike would lead to war: "I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities.”^[8]

• On why the U.S. should respond militarily to Assad: "America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth."^[8]

• September 9, 2013: Obama said, "If we don't maintain and move forward with a credible threat of military pressure, I do not think we will actually get the kind of agreement I would like to see."^[9]

• On the proposal that the Syrian government forfeit their chemical weapons to the international community: "We have not seen these kinds of gestures up until now. The fact that the U.S. administration and I have said we are serious about this, I think has prompted some interesting conversations."^[10]

• September 4, 2013: During a press conference with Sweden’s prime minister, Obama said that the international community should hold Assad accountable for using chemical weapons. He said, “I think America also recognizes that if the international community fails to maintain certain norms, standards, laws, governing, how countries interact, and how people are treated, that over time this world becomes less safe. It becomes more dangerous not only for those people who are subjected to those kinds of crimes, but to humanity. ... My credibility isn’t on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line, and America’s and Congress’ credibility is on the line."^[11]

• On Assad crossing the red line by using chemical weapons: "I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line. When I said my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There’s a reason for it.”^[11]

• August 31, 2013: Obama said, "Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place. And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see -- hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered. Several hundred of them were children -- young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government. ... And finally, let me say this to the American people: I know well that we are weary of war. We’ve ended one war in Iraq. We’re ending another in Afghanistan. And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military. In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve. And that's why we’re not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else’s war."^[12]

• April 30, 2013: Obama said, "If we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence ... we can find ourselves in a position where we can't marshal the international community in support of what we do. It's important for us to do this in a prudent way."^[13]

2012[edit]

• December 3, 2012: Obama said, "The use of chemical weapons is, and would be, totally unacceptable and if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable."^[14]

• August 20, 2012: Obama threatened the use of force against Assad for the first time during a press conference. He said, “We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people. We have been very clear to the Assad regime but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”^[11]

• Speaking about the use of unconventional weapons, Obama said, “That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria. It concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us.”^[11]

2011[edit]

• August 18, 2011: Obama said, "The United States opposes the use of violence against peaceful protesters in Syria, and we support the universal rights of the Syrian people. The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way. His calls for dialogue and reform have rung hollow while he is imprisoning, torturing, and slaughtering his own people. We have consistently said that President Assad must lead a democratic transition or get out of the way. He has not led. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside. ... The United States cannot and will not impose this transition upon Syria. It is up to the Syrian people to choose their own leaders, and we have heard their strong desire that there not be foreign intervention in their movement. What the United States will support is an effort to bring about a Syria that is democratic, just, and inclusive for all Syrians. We will support this outcome by pressuring President Assad to get out of the way of this transition, and standing up for the universal rights of the Syrian people along with others in the international community."^[15]

Secretary of State John Kerry[edit]

2013[edit]

• September 9, 2013: Kerry said, "Sure, (Bashar Assad) could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. But he isn't about to do it, and it can't be done.^[16] Kerry added, "We will be able to hold Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria's civil war. That is exactly what we are talking about doing – unbelievably small, limited kind of effort."^[17]

• September 3, 2013: During his meeting with the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, Kerry said, "Mr. Chairman, it would be preferable not to, not because there is any intention or any plan or any desire whatsoever to have boots on the ground. And I think the president will give you every assurance in the world, as am I, as has the secretary of defense and the chairman. But in the event Syria imploded, for instance, or in the event there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of al-Nusra or someone else and it was clearly in the interest of our allies and all of us, the British, the French and others, to prevent those weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of the worst elements, I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country."^[18]

• August 30, 2013: Kerry said, "Well, we know that the Assad regime has the largest chemical weapons programs in the entire Middle East. We know that the regime has used those weapons multiple times this year, and has used them on a smaller scale but still it has used them against its own people, including not very far from where last Wednesday's attack happened. ... It matters because if we choose to live in the world where a thug and a murderer like Bashar al-Assad can gas thousands of his own people with impunity, even after the United States and our allies said no, and then the world does nothing about it, there will be no end to the test of our resolve and the dangers that will flow from those others who believe that they can do as they will."^[19]

2011[edit]

• March 29, 2011: On whether the U.S should use sanctions or raise the Syrian violence to the United Nations: "I think it's premature. ... You have to see what develops in the next hours. It could reach that point. I don’t think that with this fact pattern that is the choice to make."^[20]

• March 16, 2011: In response to a question about encouraging democracy in Syria, Kerry said, "But President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had. And when I last went to – the last several trips to Syria – I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that would help us to move the process forward."^[21]

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel[edit]

2013[edit]

• September 4, 2013: Hagel said, "There’s no secret that the Assad regime has had chemical weapons, significant stockpiles of chemical weapons."^[22]

• In response to the question of whether the weapons came from a specific country, Hagel said, "The Russians supply them, others are supplying them with those chemical weapons, they make some themselves."^[22]

• The Pentagon press secretary later released the following statement about Hagel's comment about Russia: "In a response to a member of Congress, Secretary Hagel was referring to the well-known conventional arms relationship between Syria and Russia. The Syrian regime has a decades-old largely indigenous chemical weapons program. Currently, Russia provides the Syrian regime a wide variety of military equipment and support, some of which can be modified or otherwise used to support the chemical weapons program. We have publicly and privately expressed our concern over the destabilizing impact on the Syrian conflict and the wider region of continued military shipments to the Assad regime."^[23]

• September 3, 2013: Hagel said, "This risk of chemical weapons proliferation poses a direct threat to our friends and partners and to U.S. personnel in the region. We cannot afford for Hezbollah or any terrorist group determined to strike the United States to have incentives to acquire or use chemical weapons."^[24]

• April 25, 2013: Hagel said, "This morning, the White House delivered a letter to several members of Congress on the topic of chemical weapons use in Syria. The letter, which will be made available to you here shortly, states that the U.S. intelligence community assesses with some degree of varying confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin. We cannot confirm the origin of these weapons, but we do believe that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would very likely have originated with the Assad regime."^[25]

National Security Advisor Susan Rice[edit]

2013[edit]

• September 9, 2013: Rice said, "Any president, Republican or Democrat, must have recourse to all elements of American power to design and implement our national security policy — diplomatic, economic or militaristic. Rejecting limited military action that President Obama strongly supports would raise questions around the world about whether the United States is truly prepared to use the full range of its power."^[26]

• September 3, 2013: Rice said, "We have no expectation of losing the vote in Congress. ... We think that the Congress of the United States and the American people understand that we have compelling national interests at stake here. ... All of this is horrific. All of us as human beings feel terrible when we see the extraordinary loss of life that [has] occurred in Syria. With chemical weapons, they can kill with indiscriminate abandon. People who are innocent are employed in conflict. It is of a greater magnitude because if terrorists get ahold of those weapons, if other dictators get ahold of those weapons, they can be used on a massive scale."^[27]

2011[edit]

• October 4, 2011: On Russia and China vetoing a United Nations resolution containing Syrian sanctions: "We had countries all over the world supporting this resolution today, and we have countries throughout the region who’ve been very clear that the brutality of the Assad regime has to end and that the behavior of the regime is absolutely intolerable."^[28]

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power[edit]

2013[edit]

• September 9, 2013: On Obama's call for a limited military strike: "If we take military action in this context, it will be a legitimate, necessary and proportionate response to this large-scale and indiscriminate use of chemical weapons by this regime."^[29]

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton[edit]

2013[edit]

• September 9, 2013: In her first official comments, Clinton said that it would be an important step for Syria to forfeit their chemical weapons to the international community. She said, "But this cannot be another excuse for delay or obstruction. And Russia has to support the international community's efforts sincerely or be held to account."^[30]

• September 3, 2013: A Clinton aide released the following statement: "Secretary Clinton supports the president’s effort to enlist the Congress in pursuing a strong and targeted response to the Assad regime’s horrific use of chemical weapons."^[31]

2012[edit]

• December 3, 2012: Clinton said, "I am not going to telegraph any specifics what we do in the event of credible evidence that the Assad regime has resorted to using chemical weapons against their own people, but suffice to say we are certainly planning to take action if that eventuality were to occur."^[14]

2011[edit]

• March 29, 2011: Clinton said, "We're also going to continue to urge that the promise of reform, which has been made over and over again and which you reported on just a few months ago – I'm a reformer, I'm going to reform, and I've talked to members of Congress and others about that, that we hear from the highest levels of leadership in Syria – will actually be turned into reality."^[32]

• March 27, 2011: Clinton said, "There's a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer."^[32]

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta[edit]

2012[edit]

• September 28, 2012: Panetta said, "We've never had perfect visibility into the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile, but we have excellent information that accounts for most of it. We've seen it move, and we've been able to make an assessment as to why it's been moved. This is a highly distributed network of chemical weapons sites, and we have a good grasp of what's going on inside that network."^[33]

Public opinion on the use of force in Syria, 2013[edit]

According to a Gallup poll conducted September 3-4, 2013, 43 percent of respondents opposed strikes in Syria because they said that it did not concern the U.S. and that the U.S. did not need to start a new war.^[34]

International response to Syria's use of chemical weapons[edit]

Syria[edit]

On September 9, 2013, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem responded to an offer by Russia to forfeit the government's chemical weapons to the international community. He stated, "Syria welcomes the Russian proposal out of concern for the lives of the Syrian people, the security of our country and because it believes in the wisdom of the Russian leadership that seeks to avert American aggression against our people." Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov responded, "We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons." The Assad regime maintained its denial of responsibility for the attack on August 21, 2013.^[35]

During an interview on September 8, 2013, Assad denied committing the chemical weapons attack, stating, "There has been no evidence that I used chemical weapons against my own people."^[3]

European Union[edit]

On September 7, 2013, the European Union (EU) met and called for a clear and strong international response to Assad's use of chemical weapons. However, European leaders did not come to an agreement on the proposed U.S. plan of limited military action. Many leaders felt it necessary to wait until the release of United Nations reports by chemical weapons inspectors.^[36]

G20 summit[edit]

On September 6, 2013, Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, Britain, and the United States signed an agreement supporting "strong international response to this grave violation of the world's rules and conscience that will send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated." The next day, Germany agreed to join the resolution, waiting for a vote by the EU on a similar resolution.^[37][38]

China and Russia[edit]

China and Russia opposed intervention in Syria. Chinese Deputy Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao stated prior to the G20 summit, "Military action would have a negative impact on the global economy, especially on oil prices – it will cause a hike in the oil price."^[39]

On September 4, 2013, when asked how Russia would respond to U.S. intervention in Syria, Russian President Vladamir Putin said, "We have our ideas about what we will do and how we will do it in case the situation develops toward the use of force or otherwise. We have our plans. ... If we see that steps are taken that violate the existing international norms, we shall think how we should act in the future, in particular regarding supplies of such sensitive weapons to certain regions of the world."^[40]

See also[edit]

• United States involvement in Syria

Footnotes[edit]

v • e U.S. Executive Branch Elected offices President Joe Biden • Vice President Kamala Harris Executive departments Department of Defense • Department of State • Department of Homeland Security • Department of Justice • Department of Commerce • Department of Education • Department of the Treasury • Department of Agriculture • Department of Energy • Department of Labor • Department of Transportation • Department of the Interior • Department of Health and Human Services • Department of Veterans Affairs • Department of Housing and Urban Development Cabinet-level offices Environmental Protection Agency • Office of Management and Budget • U.S. Mission to the United Nations • Council of Economic Advisors • Small Business Administration • White House Chief of Staff Federally appointed offices Federal Reserve System • National Security Advisor • White House Press Secretary • U.S. Postmaster General • Central Intelligence Agency • Federal Bureau of Investigation • Internal Revenue Service • Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives • National Security Agency • Congressional Budget Office • Federal Election Commission • Transportation Security Administration • Drug Enforcement Administration • Federal Communications Commission Glossary Appointment confirmation process • United States Constitution • Electoral College • Deferred action • Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) • Deferred Action for Parents of U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) • Impeachment of federal officials • Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) • North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) • P5+1 and E3+3 • Trade adjustment assistance (TAA) • Trade promotion authority (TPA)