"We categorically reject even the idea of using chemical weapons ... against our own people," Syrian deputy foreign minister Faisal Mekdad said this week. "This is crazy, morally this is absolutely unacceptable, and no Syrian … from the government will do it."

Despite those comments, overwhelming evidence indicates the regime of Bashar al-Assad has deployedchemical weapons on the battlefield in Syria. 

The most recent — and by far the most devastating — occurred on August 21, when thousands of people were gassed while they slept in the Damascus suburb of East Ghouta.

To realize how depraved it is to use nerve agents on innocent civilians, consider that the attack was"third large-scale use of a chemical weapon in the Middle East and may have broken the longest period in history without such an attack."

That fact is currently being lost as Congress begins debating whether to approve limited military action in response to the Syrian government's actions.

Yet that's the thrust of the Obama administration's argument.

"Bashar al-Assad now joins the list of Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein [i.e., other rulers who] have used these weapons in time of war," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told NBC on Sunday. "This is of great consequence to Israel, to Jordan, to Turkey, to the region, and to all of us who care about enforcing the international norm with respect to chemical weapons."

The "threat" of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) — nuclear, biological, or chemical — is real, but one of the reasons people are hesitant to advocate a U.S. strike is because the threat of "WMDs" were used as a pretense to hasten the oust Hussein.

The Iraq war notwithstanding, history provides insight into the wickedness of chemical weapons use. That, in turn, informs why the international community has been proactive about neutralizing that threat.

In World War I poison gas was arguably the most feared of all weapons as several countries released more than 1.3 million tons of chemical agents — ranging from simple tear gas to mustard gas — and killed 90,000 men.

The gas, released in open air, spread with the speed and direction of the wind. The same thing happened outside of Damascus on August 21.

By World War II Nazi Germany had developed deadlier gasses and then took air out of the equation by releasing nerve agents in gas chambers. The effect was catastrophic— the largest chambers could kill 2,000 people at once— since the concentration of chemicals is highest in small spaces.

The horrors of the World Wars, as well as the more recent example of Iraq causing 60,000 chemical weapons casualties in their war with Iran in the '80s, explain why the Obama administration would be aggressively proactive about their use in Syria.

Furthermore, there is the added danger of Syria's chemical WMDs falling into the hands of extremists who would hesitate much less before wreaking chemical havoc on a part of the world.

That's why there has been a persistent fear throughout the Syrian conflict that Assad would transfer chemical weapons to Hezbollah, the Lebanese-based terrorist group and Iranian proxy that has more than 60,000 rockets pointed at Israel.

Syria and it's allies have insisted that Assad is not crazy enough to deploy WMDs on his people. On Friday Russian President Vladimir Putinsaid it would be "utter nonsense" for Syria's government to provoke opponents with such attacks.

But overwhelming evidence indicates that he did just that. Now it's just a matter of what the international community is going to do about it.

As Obama asked "every member of Congress and every member of the global community" on Saturday:

"What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?"

SEE ALSO: Why Syrian Government Use Of Chemical Weapons Matters To US National Security

Join the conversation about this story »

Of all of the one-on-ones in Secretary of State John Kerry's tour of the Sunday morning shows, Fox News' Chris Wallace grilled him the hardest on the Obama administration's abrupt shift in strategy on Syria.

Wallace asked Kerry if, by delaying any military action, the administration was essentially handing Iran and Syria a win.

He pressed Kerry on the message the administration sent to Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah after President Barack Obama's speech on Saturday, in which he declared that the U.S. should take military action — but that he was willing to wait nine days for Congress to come back to authorize it. And afterward, Wallace pointed out, Obama played golf.

Wallace also referenced Kerry's strong statement on Friday, in which he called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a "murderer" and a "thug."

"If the situation is so dire, if Bashar al-Assad is such a 'thug,' why is President Obama waiting until nine days from now? ... Why not call [Congress] in to session tomorrow and begin this debate?"Wallace asked.

After Kerry made news and told Wallace of the new evidence obtained by the U.S. of Syria's use of sarin gas, Wallace pressed him again. He played a clip from his speech Friday, one in which Kerry said that failure to act would embolden Iran, Hezbollah, North Korea, and future dictators seeking to obtain chemical weapons.

"Mr. Secretary, what message are we sending to Iran, and Hezbollah, and North Korea, when the President announces he thinks we should take military action, but is going to wait nine days for Congress to come back before he takes action?" Wallace said.

"And then he goes off and plays a round of golf. What message does that send to the rebels on the ground whose lives are in danger, and to our enemies who are watching?"

Kerry said that Iran and North Korea should "take note" that the U.S. has "confidence in its democratic process" to go through Congress. He also said that by waiting, the U.S. does not "lose anything" militarily — something Obama said on Saturday. 

"The rebels lose something, sir. They lose the possibility that they're going to get killed sometime soon," Wallace interjected.

Kerry told Wallace he was "amazed" by Wallace's apparent suggestion that the administration should have proceeded without Congress.

Finally, Wallace asked Kerry to respond to the Syrian state media's declaration of victory on Saturday after Obama's speech, saying he had "flinched" and that it was a "historic American retreat."

"That is in the hands of the Congress of the United States. The president has made his decision," Kerry said. "The president wants to stand up and make certain that we uphold the international norm, that we do not grant impunity to a ruthless dictator to gas his own people." 

You can watch the full clip of Kerry's appearance on Fox News here.

Join the conversation about this story »

Evening trading has opened for some commodities, and oil and gold prices are both collapsing.

Brent is off -0.87 percent (and counting) to $113.05. NYMEX-traded WTI is down -1.39% to $106.16.

Here's the chart for Brent:

Gold is also way down, declining -1.33% to $1,376.40

President Obama said he would now ask Congress to authorize a U.S. strike on Syria in response to evidence of a chemical attack, and markets are probably responding to the threat of imminent action now passing.

Join the conversation about this story »

US President Barack Obama has launched an intense lobbying effort to sway skeptical lawmakers as they weigh whether to support military strikes against Syria, an official said Sunday.

Obama, as well as Vice President Joe Biden and the White House chief of staff, all made individual calls to members of the House and Senate, according to the senior White House official.

That came on top of a classified briefing held for members of Congress on Capitol Hill Sunday afternoon that, according to the official, drew some 70 lawmakers.

On Saturday, the White House formally asked Congress for authorization to conduct military strikes in Syria in a draft resolution framing a narrow set of operations.

That came on the heels of a surprise announcement by Obama that he would seek approval from the House and Senate for action against Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons.

It remains to be seen if war-weary lawmakers will endorse Obama's push for action, or hand him a bitter defeat.

On Monday, a federal holiday, Obama will host influential Republican John McCain at the White House.

McCain indicated Sunday he was not yet sure he would support a vote on the resolution.

"We're in a bit of a dilemma here because I think Senator Lindsey Graham and I, and others, will be wanting a strategy, a plan, rather than just we're going to launch some cruise missiles and that's it," he told CBS television.

More individual phone calls to members of Congress are slated for Monday, as is a conference call with administration officials for House Democrats, the official said.

Then on Tuesday, before leaving for Stockholm and a G20 meeting in Russia, Obama will host the top Republicans and Democrats on key congressional committees that deal with national security issues.

"In all calls and briefings, we will be making the same fundamental case: the failure to take action against (Syrian President Bashar al-) Assad unravels the deterrent impact of the international norm against chemical weapons use, and it risks emboldening Assad and his key allies -- Hezbollah and Iran -- who will see that there are no consequences for such a flagrant violation of an international norm," the official said.

"Anyone who is concerned about Iran and its efforts in the region should support this action."

But it appears the administration faces an uphill battle.

After Sunday's briefing at the US Capitol, many lawmakers still appeared unconvinced.

Join the conversation about this story »

A retired Marine Corps General expressed reservations over a limited military strike against Syria on ABC News' "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday, saying that limited strikes in the past have "not been an effective deterrant."

"Historically, trying to punish someone with a limited strike has not been an effective deterrent," said Gen. James Cartwright. "So the question becomes what is the strategy? Are we trying to punish and then are we trying to deter from use of the chemicals in the future and retaliation in the future?"

"If that's the case, then what is the appropriate target set, what is the appropriate military action that would at least lead us in that direction?," he asked.

Cartwright, a retired four-star general who served as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Presidents Bush and Obama, was on a panel discussing military options in Syria and what a U.S. strike may look like.

"It starts at the tactical level. Can the forces of posture stay on station for a month or two months until we go to congress until a decision is reached and the answer to that is yes, they can do that," Cartwright said, referring to the military presence continuing to build in the region, but he asked, "will the [Syrian military] targets stay that they have used or planned to carry out this [chemical weapons] strategy ... or will they be moved?"

But, the general reasoned, most of the targets are fixed in place, so they likely would not be moved. When asked whether the U.S. would hit chemical weapons sites, the general said that chemical weapons stockpiles would not be struck, due to the danger of deadly gases causing more casualties. 

Cartwright did express skepticism over attacking Syrian targets as a preventative measure for further chemical weapons usage.

"This idea of prevent, which I don't think is possible," Cartwright said, although he didn't discount a military option entirely.

"But the idea of deterring the use of these chemicals in the future, you want to go with the facilities, you want to go where production is done," he said, adding that hitting infrastructure and other targets that would prevent Syria from moving chemicals could have an effect.

As the push for U.S.-led intervention in Syria has intensified in recent days and with a Sep. 9 vote looming, the debate is sure to intensify. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has expressed reservations over aiding anti-Assad forces, while Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham have argued that a limited military strike in Syria doesn't go far enough.

You can watch the full panel discussion at ABC News (starts at around 17:30).

Join the conversation about this story »

The Syrian Electronic Army (SEA) has been highly active over the last six months targeting media outlets it believes are reporting untruths about what is happening in Syria. The group, which supports President Bashar al-Assad, last week claimed responsibility for attacks on the New York Times and Twitter - as a result of the group's official Twitter account being suspended.

However the group turned its attention to the US Marines, who could potentially be drawn into the civil war in Syria, though President Barack Obama on Sunday was branded as "hesitant and confused" by the Assad regime over his plans to wait for Congressional approval before launching any air strikes against regime targets.

The SEA defaced the marines.com website early on Monday morning but at the time of publication the website had returned to normal. As well as posting a lengthy message to its "brothers" in the US Marine Corps, the SEA posted a series of pictures purporting to show soldiers in uniform holding up written messages protesting Us involvement in Syria.

Unlike messages posted on the websites and Twitter accounts of media outlets it has targeted, the SEA's message to US marines called on them to view Assad's forces as brothers-in-arms, claiming a strike against the regime's targets would aid al-Qaida's efforts in the region.

The full text of the message reads as follows:

"This is a message written by your brothers in the Syrian Army, who have been fighting al-Qaida for the last 3 years. We understand your patriotism and love for your country so please understand our love for ours. Obama is a traitor who wants to put your lives in danger to rescue al- Qaida insurgents.

Marines, please take a look at what your comrades think about Obama's alliance with al-Qaida against Syria. Your officer in charge probably has no qualms about sending you to die against soldiers just like you, fighting a vile common enemy. The Syrian army should be your ally not your enemy.

Refuse your orders and concentrate on the real reason every soldier joins their military, to defend their homeland. You're more than welcome to fight alongside our army rather than against it.

Your brothers, the Syrian army soldiers. A message delivered by the SEA"

In an email interview with the BBC, an SEA spokesman warned media outlets reporting on the conflict in Syria to "expect us" and that the group had "many surprises" planned.

He added: "Military intervention in Syria has many consequences and will affect the whole world. Our main mission is to spread truth about Syria and what is really happening."

SEE ALSO: Here's what Marines have in common with Syrian rebels

Join the conversation about this story »

Britain doesn't think a failed vote on Syrian intervention will hurt its "special relationship" with the United States — and they don't really care if it does, either.

A new BBC poll finds that a vast majority of people — almost three-quarters — in Britain think that the House of Commons was right to vote down proposed military action in Syria.

The vote, which came last Thursday, served as a shock and huge setback to Prime Minister David Cameron. It also was a blow to the fast-advancing strategy led by the U.S. and President Barack Obama, who was pushing for limited military action last week that included a broader scope of international allies.

According to the BBC poll, 49% do think the vote will hurt Britain's standing internationally at least a little, compared with 44% who think it won't matter.

And on the "special relationship" with the U.S., 72% do not agree that it will be undermined. 77% disagree with the sentiment that Britain is "turning its back" on the U.S. And 67% agree with the notion that the special relationship is "not relevant in the modern age, and we should not be concerned about hurting American feelings."

The White House has taken pains to emphasize that the U.S. still enjoys a "special relationship" with the U.K. over the past few days. But one of Britain's tabloid newspapers, The Sun, memorably declared its death in its Saturday edition:

Join the conversation about this story »

With the president poised to strike in Syria and the Congress set to vote on the issue the week of Sept. 9, the debate about U.S. military intervention in the two-year-old civil war is already happening amongst the American public.

Some Americans have made their voices known to their representatives, with many saying the U.S. should stay out of the conflict, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

In the poll, only 20% said the U.S. should take action, although that was up from 9% last week. Even if it's clear the Assad regime used chemical weapons on civilians, only 29% said the U.S. should intervene.

That sentiment appears to be mirrored with veterans and members of the military, who have been tweeting to Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), as well as personally emailing me their thoughts* after Business Insider published two letters from troops on Saturday.

While President Obama has repeatedly denied there would be "boots on the ground," and the strike would be limited — likely using cruise missiles from ships far away — many were fearful of the possibility of further involvement.

"I'm a U.S. Air Force vet who spent a solid 6 years shuttling between Afghanistan and Iraq, doing everything from combat airdrops to medevacs to hauling flag-draped coffins," wrote one servicemember in an email, who also mentioned travel to 38 countries in that time. "What we do not need is another war, and we certainly do not need any further involvement in a civil war where our objective isn't clear, and our allies aren't really our allies."

Outrage was largely shared by most over chemical weapons usage in the conflict — the Aug. 21 gassing of civilians near Damascus killed more than 1,400, many of them children— but many servicemembers expressed questions over any specific U.S. national security interest.

"The U.S. has stood by idly while many countries have massacred themselves in a civil war. This should not be any different," wrote one active-duty Marine who said he had deployed five times to Iraq or Afghanistan. "The method of their war should not make any difference, killing is killing. As long as the conflict stays within their borders, we do not have any business interfering."

"This country has a fairly recent history of sticking our noses where it doesn't belong," wrote another. "Since Vietnam, America has used other nations' transgressions as a reason to go in and set up shop for our government's own reasons. This sort of behavior needs to end. We are not a world police."

Still, while many who have written to Business Insider have voiced opposition to military action (the tally was roughly 50-2 against), there were some who believed good could be done in the country with a more robust response.

"Dropping a few missiles, without any clear idea of what type of war we're really getting into will put us on the wrong side of a bad and worse dilemma ... " wrote one Marine veteran of the Iraq war. "I'd like to see a broader 'smarter' strategy for dealing with Syria than dropping a few tomahawk missiles with 'no objective' but to punish Assad."

As both lawmakers and the public remain skeptical, it seems the Obama administration has an uphill battle ahead of any vote to authorize the use of military force. That sentiment was echoed by the International Crisis Group, a well-respected organization that released a statement on Sunday that said limited strikes were "largely divorced from the interests of the Syrian people" while calling for a larger political and diplomatic solution.

* Quotes from emails in this article have been edited for clarity.

SEE ALSO: SOLDIERS SPEAK OUT ON SYRIA: 'We Are Stretched Thin, Tired, And Broke'

Join the conversation about this story »

President Barack Obama will meet with Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Syria — a meeting that could serve as one of the most significant in Obama's quest for Congressional approval for limited military action in Syria.

A Graham spokeswoman confirmed that both senators will be at the White House at 2 p.m. Monday. 

Getting McCain and Graham to come around to his plan on Syria will be essential for Obama in earning Senate passage of authorization of force. They represent two of the Republican Party's fiercest foreign policy "hawks." They support action, but they don't think Obama's current plan of limited airstrikes is enough.

And they want a strategy that will eventually lead to the toppling of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — something the administration says is not the goal of the current plan, as it could lead to a longer-than-anticipated engagement in the country. 

McCain and Graham signaled in a joint statement on Saturday that Obama's seeking of Congressional approval might face more hurdles — not only from anti-war doves, but also from hawks who doesn't think his plan goes far enough.

Here's their joint statement:

"We believe President Obama is correct that the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons requires a military response by the United States and our friends and allies. Since the President is now seeking Congressional support for this action, the Congress must act as soon as possible.

"However, we cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the President's stated goal of Assad's removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests. Anything short of this would be an inadequate response to the crimes against humanity that Assad and his forces are committing. And it would send the wrong signal to America's friends and allies, the Syrian opposition, the Assad regime, Iran, and the world – all of whom are watching closely what actions America will take."

It is part of the White House's "flood the zone" approach to earn Congressional approval — though this meeting is a touch more personal. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing on Tuesday that features Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. And the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday.

Join the conversation about this story »

DUBAI (Reuters) - An Iranian news agency quoted former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani as saying Syria's government had attacked its own people with chemical weapons, but later replaced the report with a different version that did not attribute blame for the raid.

The second version by the semi-official Iranian Labour News Agency reported him as saying on Sunday: "On the one hand the people of Syria are the target of a chemical attack, and now they must wait for an attack by foreigners."

In the earlier version, the quote was: "The people have been the target of a chemical attack by their own government and now they must also wait for an attack by foreigners."

The earlier versionof his remarks differed sharply from comments by other Iranian officials, who have said rebels trying to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were responsible for a poison gas attack on the outskirts of Damascus on August 21.

The attack has drawn Western threats of military reprisals against the Syriangovernment, an ally of Iran.

In other remarks which were unchanged, Rafsanjani went on: "Right now America, the Western world along with some of the Arab countries are nearly issuing a clarion call for war in Syria - may God have mercy on the people of Syria," he said.

"The people of Syria have seen much damage in these two years, the prisons are overflowing and they've converted stadiums into prisons, more than 100,000 people killed and millions displaced," he added.

Rafsanjani is a close ally ofIranian President Hassan Rouhani and chairs Iran's Expediency Council, which advises Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Iranian soldiers suffered chemical weapons attacks during the country's 1980-1988 war with Iraq, and Iran has repeatedly condemned their use.

(Reporting By Yeganeh Torbati, Editing by William Maclean and Jon Boyle)

Join the conversation about this story »

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and four other ships in its strike group moved into the Red Sea early on Monday, U.S. defense officials said, describing the move as "prudent planning" in case the ships are needed for military action against Syria.

The officials said the Nimitz entered the Red Sea around 6 a.m. EDT (1000 GMT), but the strike group had not received any orders to move into the Mediterranean, where five U.S. destroyers and an amphibious ship, the USS San Antonio, remain poised for possible cruise missile strikes against Syria.

Moving the Nimitz into the Red Sea was aimed at putting more U.S. assets in place if they are needed to support what U.S. officials still describe as a limited attack against Syria after it used chemical weapons against civilians.

"It does place that strike group in a position to respond to a variety of contingencies," said one official, who was not authorized to speak publicly.

The nuclear-powered Nimitz is accompanied by the Princeton, a cruiser, and three destroyers - the William P. Lawrence, Stockdale and Shoup, according to the officials.

They said there had been no change regarding six U.S. Navy ships now in the eastern Mediterranean, but military planners were reassessing the situation given a delay in the cruise missile strikes that had been expected this past weekend.

President Barack Obama on Saturday backed off imminent strikes by the destroyers off the coast of Syria until Congress had time to vote its approval. Defense officials said the delay gave them more time to reassess which ships and other weapons will be kept in the region - and whether some may be allowed to leave. Congress returns to Washington September 9.

The U.S. Navy doubled its presence in the eastern Mediterranean in the past week, effectively adding two destroyers to the three that generally patrol the region, and diverting the San Antonio, which carries four massive CH-53 helicopters and 300 Marines, from another mission.

Two of the destroyers were due to be relieved but are now serving along with the ships that were to replace them.

PRUDENT DEPLOYMENT

It was not immediately clear how long those ships would be asked to remain in the eastern Mediterranean, but officials suggested that changes could be made to the current fleet there in coming days.

The destroyers are carrying a combined load of about 200 Tomahawk missiles, but officials say a limited strike on Syria could be accomplished with half that number.

Retired Admiral Gary Roughead, who served as chief of naval operations during the 2011 strikes on Libya, said the Navy's decision to move the carrier into the Red Sea meant it was closer to the "points of tension."

"It's a prudent move that provides for maximum naval flexibility in the region," Roughead, who is now a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, told Reuters. "It is not unusual to move carriers around in North Arabian Sea and Red Sea as events dictate."

Reuters reported Sunday that officials had rerouted the Nimitz carrier group, which was due to sail east around Asia to return to its home port in Everett, Washington, after being relieved in recent days by another aircraft carrier, the USS Harry S. Truman.

Officials said the USS Kearsarge, a large-deck amphibious ship, remained in North Arabian Sea, and there were no plans to move the ship into the Red Sea.

The Kearsarge, which carries 6 AV-8B Harriers, 10-12 V-22 Ospreys and helicopters, played a key role in the 2011 strikes on Libya. Two Ospreys launched from the ship helped rescue a downed F-15 pilot during that operation.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Jackie Frank and Philip Barbara)

Join the conversation about this story »

Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham came out of their meeting with President Barack Obama more optimistic and supportive of a plan of military intervention in Syria. It potentially lines them up as key allies for Obama in Congressional passage of authorization of military force. Both warned, however, that passage has a "long way to go."

McCain told reporters after the meeting that a vote that prevents military action in Syria would be "catastrophic." He said that U.S. credibility would be "shredded," since Obama said on Saturday that he has decided military action is appropriate.

And both McCain and Graham both expressed confidence that Obama's plan of more limited intervention than they had hoped for would both weaken Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and strengthen rebel forces. 

Graham, meanwhile, warned of the consequences a failed vote would have and the message it would send to Iran in their proliferation of nuclear weapons:

At the end of the day this is a Syrian fight, but the outcome does not limit itself to #Syria.

— Lindsey Graham (@GrahamBlog) September 2, 2013

If we don't get Syria right, good luck in convincing the Iranians to change their behavior and their drive for nuclear weapons.

— Lindsey Graham (@GrahamBlog) September 2, 2013

Syria is a cancer that is growing in the region. And over the past 2 years Pres. Obama has allowed the situation There to become a debacle.

— Lindsey Graham (@GrahamBlog) September 2, 2013

The meeting with McCain and Graham was part of a broad push by the White House to win Congressional support for their military plan. 

McCain and Graham are both important votes in the Senate, because they represent two of the Republican Party's fiercest foreign policy "hawks." They support action, but they don't think Obama's current plan of limited airstrikes is enough.

And they want a strategy that will eventually lead to the toppling of Assad — something the administration says is not the goal of the current plan, as it could lead to a longer-than-anticipated engagement in the country. 

SEE ALSO: Fox News' Chris Wallace Absolutely Grilled John Kerry On Syria

Join the conversation about this story »

Syrian military commanders are continuing to redeploy forces away from sensitive sites ahead of a postponed US air strike that many in Damascus believe is still likely.

Residents of the Syrian capital said on Monday that troops had moved into schools and universities, which officials calculate are unlikely to be hit if Barack Obama orders an attack following a congressional vote next Monday.

After a week of deep anxiety, his declaration that he would ask Congress to debate his plans to attack led to intense relief in the past 48 hours among many in Damascus, and well beyond.

Damascenes reported more checkpoints than usual in regime-held areas, but said the capital continued to function as it had during the past two years of ever more entrenched war. In rebel-held districts, where siege and deprivation have bitten deeper, locals claimed a sense of despair had descended after Obama's speech.

"They were so close to doing something," said Umm Latifa, the widowed head of a household of six children in east Damascus. "Anything to make [the regime] scared would have been a blessing."

In Beirut, where last week's buildup was also acutely felt, the streets were at their busiest in several weeks and a palpable air of tension appeared to have lifted slightly. But by nightfall on Monday, reminders of what might lay ahead resurfaced as Lebanese media carried reports of Hezbollah ordering thousands of its members to switch off their phones and report to fighting positions.

The reaction to a strike from the powerful Shia militia, a resolute ally of the Assad regime, will be instrumental in determining whether the stated US goal of a narrow operation can be achieved.

Many in Lebanon fear that some form of retribution from Syria's allies is inevitable, unless they are convinced that the propaganda value of riding out a short, sharp attack that changes little is higher than the cost of not responding.

"This is a very big decision for Hezbollah – make that Iran," said a Lebanese political leader who did not want to be named. "They want to create the impression that it's all on the line for the Americans. But it's bluff at this point. A game with very high stakes."

Their fates long seen as indelibly tied, Lebanon's fortunes, and the confidence of its residents, have risen and fallen roughly in line with those of the Syrian government. Two large car bombs in Tripoli, Lebanon, and a relatively rare rocket attack against Israel quickly followed the suspected chemical weapons attack in Damascus of 21 April, prompting some Beirut-based political foes of the Assad regime to suggest the attacks were planned as a diversion.

The Lebanese Internal Security Forces have charged two clerics in the north, who they allege had confessed to dealings with Syrian intelligence figures in the days before the blasts and knew that the two bomb-laden cars had been driven to Tripoli from the Syrian city of Tartus.

They have also charged in absentia the head of Syria's General Intelligence Bureau, General Ali Mamlouk, as well as a junior intelligence officer.

It emerged on Monday that Russia had dispatched a military reconnaissance ship to the eastern Mediterranean, where five US warships are operating in the lead-up to a widely expected air strike in Syria.

The Priazovye departed for the Syrian coast on Sunday to keep tabs on the situation there, Russia's state news agency Itar-Tass quoted a military source as saying. Russia's foreign minister has previously said his country was not planning to become involved in a military conflict over Syria.

"This is the normal policy of any fleet in the case of an increase in tensions in any ocean or sea," the source said.

The Russian deployment follows the arrival last week of the USS Stout, a guided missile destroyer, sent to relieve the USS Mahan. A US defence official told AFP that both destroyers might remain in the area for now. Along with the Ramage, the Barry and the Gravely, the destroyers could launch Tomahawk missiles at targets in Syria if Obama orders an attack.

A group of US ships led by the aircraft carrier Nimitz have been deployed in the Arabian Sea.

On Monday, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said a US strike would put the proposed Geneva II peace conference in serious doubt, Itar-Tass reported.

"If the action announced by the president of the US unfortunately occurs, it will put off prospects for the forum for a long time, if not for ever," Lavrov said.

Lavrov said Moscow remained unconvinced by US allegations that the Assad regime was behind the chemical attack after a meeting between the US ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, and a senior Russian diplomat. The material presented by the US contained no facts and "absolutely does not convince us", Lavrov said.

This article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk

Join the conversation about this story »

Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, has challenged the west to come up with "a single piece" of evidence that he has used chemical weapons.

He warned that any military intervention in Syria could spark a "regional war".

"The Middle East is a powder keg, and today the fuse is getting shorter," he said in an exclusive interview with the French newspaper Le Figaro.

As the French government published declassified documents purporting to show the Assad regime has used chemical weapons against its own people, the Syrian president vehemently denied the accusations.

"Whoever is doing the accusing must come up with proof. We have challenged the United States and France to provide a single piece of proof. Messrs Obama and Holland haven't been able to do so, even to their own people," Assad said.

He said there was no logic to claims his forces used lethal sarin nerve gas in an attack on the outskirts of Damascus on 21 August.

"Supposing our army wanted to use weapons of massive destruction; would it do so in a zone where it is located and where soldiers have been injured by these weapons, as the United Nations inspectors noted when they visited the hospital where they were being treated. Where is the logic?" Assad said.

Asked what would happen if outside forces carried out military strikes against his regime, Assad replied: "One must not speak only about the Syrian response, but rather what could happen after the first strike.

"Because nobody can know what will happen. Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes. Chaos and extremism will spread. The risk of a regional war exists."

Assad's interview came just two days before the French parliament is due to debate Syria and the possibility of military intervention against Damascus in response to the chemical weapons attack.

The Syrian president warned: "Whoever contributes to the reinforcing of terrorists, financially and militarily, is an enemy of the Syrian people. Whoever acts against the interests of Syria and its citizens is an enemy.

"The French people are not our enemy, but the politics of the (French) state is hostile to the Syrian people. As French state politics is hostile to the Syrian people, that state is an enemy.

"This hostility will end when the French state changes its policies. There will be repercussions, negative of course, for France's interests."

On Monday, the Assad regime asked the United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-moon to "shoulder his responsibilities for preventing any aggression on Syria". It also called on the UN security council to "maintain its role as a safety valve to prevent the absurd use of force out of the frame of international legitimacy," according to Syrian state media.

Syria has said it wants help achieving a "political solution" to the conflict, but Assad told Le Figaro it was too late to negotiate with the opposition forces ranged against him. "We are fighting terrorists ... they are not interested in reform or in politics," he said.

This article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk

Join the conversation about this story »

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad taunted U.S. President Barack Obama as a "weak" leader who had no proof Assad had used chemical weapons on his country's own people, and warned that U.S. airstrikes could set off a "regional war."

"For us, a strong man prevents rather than starts a war," Assad told the French newspaper Le Figaro in an interview, as translated by NBC News. "If Obama was strong, he would have said publicly: 'We have no evidence of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian state.' He would have said publicly: 'The only way to proceed is through U.N. investigations. We therefore refer everything to the Security Council.'

"But Obama is weak because he is facing pressure from within the United States."

On Saturday, Obama announced that while he had decided the U.S. should proceed with limited military action in Syria, he would seek Congressional approval for authorizing such action.

The White House released a declassified report Friday detailing with "high confidence" the assessment that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against its people in an Aug. 21 attack. Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that samples gathered by first responded tested positive for sarin gas, a deadly nerve agent.

The White House accused Assad of being responsible for the death of 1,429 people in the attack, including 426 children.

"We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence," the report read.

U.N. inspectors left Syria on Saturday and have asked its chemical weapons inspection team to speedily investigate samples gathered to determine whether chemical weapons were used.

In the interview with Le Figaro, Assad did not deny that his army possessed chemical weapons. But he did question why he would authorize the use of such weapons, especially if his own soldiers were in the area of the attack.

Assad also warned that if attacked, Syria could turn the Middle East into a war zone that goes far beyond Syrian borders. 

"If we think of the Middle East as a barrel of explosives close to a fire that is coming ever closer, then it becomes clear that the issue is no longer contained to a Syrian response, but rather what will happen after the first strike," he said.

"The architects of the war can define the first strike – in other words, they can determine what they will do, but beyond that it is impossible for anyone to predict what will follow. Once the barrel explodes, everyone loses control. Nobody can determine the outcome. However what is certain is the spread of chaos, wars, and extremism in all its forms everywhere."

Assad said that an end to the Syrian civil war, which has been in flux for more than 2.5 years, is not on the horizon. And he expressed skepticism that a diplomatic solution can be reached, at this point.

"The situation today is different," he said, comparing the difference between now and when the war began.

"Today we are fighting terrorists, 80-90% of them affiliated to Al-Qaeda. These terrorists are not interested in reform, or politics, or legislation. The only way to deal with the terrorists is to strike them; only then can we talk about political steps. So in response to your question, the solution today lies in stopping the influx of terrorists into Syria and stopping the financial, military or any other support they receive."

Join the conversation about this story »

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) warned on Tuesday that it could be a "recipe for disaster" if Congress tries to "micromanage" authorization for military action in Syria.

Kaine made the statements on "Morning Joe," when he was making the argument that military action should be a bit more limited than defined by the White House in its draft resolution authorizing military force.

"I think, to your question, it would be a recipe for disaster to try to micromanage," Kaine said in response to a question from Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson about the difference between members of Congress like him and Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who want broader action. 

"My view of the constitution is — Congress has to be involved in the initiation of military action. But the president's the Commander-in-Chief, and you've got to give the president some latitude in terms of implementing the congressional decision to initiate military action."

Kaine said, though, that some limits were needed on the authorization, such as a finite duration and a provision that would require President Obama to get Congressional approval for any major escalations in Syria, such as boots on the ground.

Kaine's sentiment was one that also worried McCain, who said in a subsequent appearance on "Morning Joe" that he feared the possibility of "535 commanders-in-chief" who would try to limit the President's authority in carrying out military operations. 

"I think that it would be, frankly, a risk," McCain said. "If I thought it was a meaningless resolution that constrained the president from doing what's necessary, I couldn't vote for it."

Here's a clip of Kaine's appearance:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Join the conversation about this story »

One of the primary criticisms of U.S. President Barack Obama's plan for a limited attack on Syria is that there is no long-term strategy in place for what happens after bombs fall on Damascus.

But that's not true. There is a U.S. Syria strategy, and it is showing signs of increasing success.

Former U.S. Army vice chief of staff General Jack Keane said he spoke withRepublican senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who were briefed by the president on Monday.

"What [Obama] has told the two senators is that he also intends to assist the opposition forces, so he is going to degrade Assad's military capacity and he is going to assist and upgrade the opposition forces with training assistance," Gen. Keane told BBC Radio.

Subsequently Graham, who recently said he cannot support limited strikes that "are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield,"said: "There seems to be emerging from this administration a pretty solid plan to upgrade the opposition."

The U.S. plan: Degrade Assad, bolster opposition, curb jihadists

Last week Pentagon officials told The Wall Street Journal that the planned attack would "deter and degrade" President Bashar al-Assad's security forces. The key would be hitting various Damascus headquarters as well as some of the regime's six operable airports.

These airports are the "regime's nervous system," defected Air Force Colonel Hassan Hamada told Der Spiegel.

Last week we detailed here how doing so could curb Assad's relentless bombing of civilians, the flow of supplies from Iran and Russia, and the resupplying of Syrian troops in various areas.

The less obvious, and more long-term, part of the plan involves providing vetted parts of the opposition with advanced weaponry, training them with Western advisors, and curbing the funding for jihadist groups.

The U.S. hasn't yet armed moderate fighters, but Saudi Arabia has.

The Institute of The Study of War's Liz O'Bagy, who made trips to various parts of Syria in the last year, wrote in The Wall Street Journal that moderate rebel groups "have recently been empowered by the influx of arms and money from Saudi Arabia and other allied countries, such as Jordan and France."

She added that these weapons "helped fuel a number of recent rebel advances in Damascus."

Interpreter Magazine Editor-in-Chief Michael D. Weiss, who also coversSyriaextensively, told Business Insider that the Saudi weapons had made it to East Ghouta, i.e., the site of the August 21 chemical weapons attack.

Last week Weiss reported that Saudi Arabia has been working closely with Jordan, the U.S., U.K., and France to "set up and run an undisclosed joint operations center in Jordan to train vetted Syrian rebels in tactical warfare methods, intelligence, counterintelligence, and weapons application."

About 1,000 trainees have graduated from the program so far, according to Weiss, and one Syrian interviewed said his brother's martial skills improved immensely after finishing the program.

Furthermore, The New York Times reports that Obama told senators "the first 50-man cell of fighters, who have been trained by the C.I.A., was beginning to sneak into Syria."

Lastly, something must be done to stem the flow of money to dominant jihadist groups, which Weiss calls "a scandal, but an easily remedied one."

This money comes primarily from Kuwait and Qatar, and Weiss writes that the U.S. Treasury Department can and should pressure Gulf countries " to eliminate whatever private or quasi-state fundraising mechanisms al Qaeda and other non-FSA-aligned extremist groups in Syria exploit to keep themselves in cash and bullets."

Endgame

So even if one is opposed to American military retaliation for the August 21 chemical attack, or thinks that efforts to bolster moderate rebels have failed up to this point, that doesn't mean there isn't a clear American strategy in place against the Assad regime.

Obama said as much on Tuesday: "We have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, allow Syria ultimately to free itself from the kinds of terrible civil war, death and activity that we've been seeing on the ground."

House Speaker John Boehner and House Minority Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Eric Cantor subsequently said that they now support the president's plan. 

SEE ALSO: Why Syrian Government Use Of Chemical Weapons Matters To US National Security

Join the conversation about this story »

Both House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that they would support President Barack Obama's plan for limited military action in Syria, with Boehner saying that it's "something the country needs to do."

"I'm going to support the president's call for action, and I believe my colleagues should," Boehner said. 

Both addressed reporters after a meeting Tuesday morning between Obama and Congressional leaders on Syria. And House Minority Leader Eric Cantor quickly issued a statement of support after the meeting.

The support of both Boehner and Cantor is significant for passage in a couple of ways. They rarely get out publicly ahead of his Republican conference, so it suggests that they feel strongly about the issue.

And it signals that Boehner and Cantor will be a crucial, active voices in getting other House Republicans to support the authorization of military force. This is important in the House, where passage faces a much more uncertain path than in the Senate. A Boehner spokesman, however, said that the Speaker would leave it to Obama to "whip" votes.

Before the meeting, Obama said that there should be a "prompt" vote in both chambers of Congress early next week.

Boehner said that only the U.S. has the "capability and the capacity" to respond to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons against his own people on Aug. 21. 

"The use of these weapons has to be responded to," Boehner said.

Pelosi echoed Boehner's support, saying that she associates herself with Boehner's remarks. Her support will also be important in potentially swaying Democrats not normally supportive of military action. 

"President Obama did not draw the red line. Humanity drew it," Pelosi said.

In his statement, Cantor suggested that a failure to respond to Assad's use of chemical weapons could have broader implications for U.S. interests throughout the region. 

"It is not just an abstract theory that the Syrian conflict threatens the stability of key American partners in the region. It is a reality," Cantor said.

“Beyond the obvious regional interests, a failure to adequately respond to the use of chemical weapons and compel the end of this conflict on terms beneficial to America and our partners only increases the likelihood of future WMD use by the regime, transfer to Hizballah, or acquisition by al-Qaeda. No one wants to be asking why we failed to act if the next time Sarin is used it is in the Paris or New York subway."

Join the conversation about this story »

The first cell of Syrian rebels trained and armed by the CIA is making its way to the battlefield, President Barack Obama has reportedly told senators.

During a meeting at the White House, the president assured Senator John McCain that after months of delay the US was meeting its commitment to back moderate elements of the opposition.

Mr Obama said that a 50-man cell, believed to have been trained by US special forces in Jordan, was making its way across the border into Syria, according to the New York Times.

The deployment of the rebel unit seems to be the first tangible measure of support since Mr Obama announced in June that the US would begin providing the opposition with small arms.

Congressional opposition delayed the plan for several weeks and rebel commanders publicly complained the US was still doing nothing to match the Russian-made firepower of the Assad regime.

Mr McCain has been a chief critic of the White House's reluctance to become involved in Syria and has long demanded that Mr Obama provide the rebels with arms needed to overthrow the regime.

He and Senator Lindsey Graham, a fellow Republican foreign policy hawk, emerged from the Oval Office meeting on Monday cautiously optimistic that Mr Obama would step up support for the rebels.

"There seems to be emerging from this administration a pretty solid plan to upgrade the opposition," Mr Graham said.

He added that he hoped the opposition would be given "a chance to speak directly to the American people" to counter US fears that they were dominated by al-Qaeda sympathisers.

"They're not trying to replace one dictator, Assad, who has been brutal... to only have al-Qaeda run Syria," Mr Graham said.

The US announced in June, following the first allegations the Assad regime had used chemical weapons, that it would send light arms to the rebels but refused to provide anti-aircraft missiles and other heavy weapons.

American concerns were born partly out of the experience of Afghanistan in the 1980s, when CIA weapons given to the anti-Russian mujahideen were later used by the Taliban.

SEE ALSO: Syria's Assad Warns The Middle East Is A 'Powder Keg'

Join the conversation about this story »

In his media tour Tuesday morning, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) ripped into Fox News host Brian Kilmeade for his criticism of a Syrian rebel's chanting of "Allahu Akbar."

On "Fox & Friends," Kilmeade told McCain — who has been a constant advocate for U.S. intervention in Syria — that he had concerns over the Syrian rebels' alleged "ties to extremists." Kilmeade played a clip of an explosion on government-held territory in Syria, after which a rebel shouts, "Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!"

"I have a problem helping those people screaming that after a hit,” Kilmeade said.

McCain, clearly annoyed, shot back immediately at Kilmeade.

"Would you have a problem with an American person saying, 'Thank God! Thank God!?'" McCain said.

"That's what they're saying. Come on! Of course they're Muslims. But they're moderates, and I guarantee you they are moderates. I know them and I've been with them. For someone to say, 'Allahu Akbar' is about as offensive as someone saying, 'Thank God.'"

Here's the clip of McCain's appearance on Fox (the relevant part starts around the 3:00 mark):

(Via ThinkProgress)

Join the conversation about this story »