The US is under concerted pressure from its allies to jump into the Syrian civil war on behalf of the rebels. It is already supporting the overthrow of the Bashar al-Assad regime in all sorts of ways, just short of indiscriminate supply of arms to the rebels. Indeed, the CIA is involved in facilitating the supply of US arms through third parties, like Qatar, Jordan, Turkey and so on. But after its bitter experiences of the Afghan and Iraq wars, it is sensibly keen to avoid another quagmire in Syria, though it is difficult to say if it will stick to that resolve. The US is deeply worried about the direction that a post-Assad Syria might take. This was reflected in President Barck Obama’s recent talks at the White House with the visiting emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamid bin Khalifa al Thani. President Obama said that their two nations had been discussing the best way to remove Assad and “strengthen an opposition that can bring about a democratic Syria that represents all people and respects their rights.” The US, like Qatar, and most Arab countries, plus Turkey, are committed to remove Assad but what will replace him is the key issue. Whether or not the US gets directly involved, by way of supplying arms directly to the rebels, will be influenced greatly by the credible evidence about the alleged use by the regime of chemical weapons. Britain and France appear inclined to this view, as do the Arab countries supporting rebels. The Assad regime, on the other hand, is accusing the rebels of using chemical stuff. It has dismissed the allegation against it as a “barefaced lie.” Israel too has chipped in to accuse the Assad regime of using chemical weapons. According to General Itai Brun, chief of research and analysis for the Israeli army’s military intelligence division, “To the best of our professional understanding, the regime used chemical weapons against fighters in a series of incidents in recent months.” Elaborating, he said, “The dilated pupils, the frothing at the mouth and other signs testify, in our view, to the use of liquid chemical weapons, apparently sarin.” But there is no concrete evidence to support this. Indeed, according to John Kerry, US Secretary of State, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was unable to confirm reports of Syria’s use of chemical weapons in his phone call to the Israeli leader. Similarly, the US Defence Secretary, Chuck Hagel, said in Cairo, after meeting Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi that “When I was in Israel, they did not give me that assessment.” And he added, “This is a serious business and you want to be as sure as you can be on these kinds of things. Suspicions are one thing, evidence is another.” But the Obama administration remains under intense pressure, internally and externally, to act directly against the Assad regime. Internally, powerful Republicans like, John McCain, a former presidential candidate, favours the Libyan model of establishing safe operational corridors for rebels to operate, a no fly-zone and arming the rebels. He has invoked Obama’s warning that if the Assad regime were to use chemical weapons against its people (as they have done, according to him), it will constitute a “red line” for US intervention. Within the US intelligence community too there is growing belief with “varying degrees of confidence” that the regime did use chemical weapons. Externally, the United Kingdom and France too seem to believe that the Assad regime, most likely, used chemical weapons last month in Aleppo and outskirts of Damascus. And now Israel has come out with its assessment about the regime’s culpability. But one has to be very careful about Israeli intelligence. Even the US, its protector and ally, is not persuaded by it. At the best of times, Israel’s bonafides are suspect on issues relating to the Middle East. And what is happening in Syria today is probably the worst of times in that region. For the most part, apart from bombing, as it did the other day, suspected weapon supplies for Hezbollah in Lebanon, and occasional shooting across the Golan Heights, Israel has so far largely stayed out of the Syrian civil war. It would suit Tel Aviv to see its enemies, both the Syrian regime and the rebels, tear themselves out in a fratricidal war. As for any preference between the two, it would probably incline towards the Assad regime that had kept a lid on the Syrian tinderbox that is now blowing up. What has then led Israel to come out with its intelligence assessment on the use of chemical weapons? An important, if not compelling, reason is that Israel is extremely worried about the safety of the vast stockpile of chemical weapons in Syria. It is, therefore, very keen for collaborative action, led by the US, to secure these stockpiles. Up until recently, Syria’s chemical weapons have been fairly secure. With the Syrian situation becoming unstable by the day and the regime on the back foot, it is feared that they might be tempted to use them as a last resort. If the claims about the recent use of sarin gas are true, then it is a serious portent of things to come. However, in the shifting sands of the Syrian political and military landscape, were these weapons to fall under control of the rebels, considering that the most effective elements among them are now the jihadist groups, the question of securing chemical weapons would become even more crucial. For Israel, right on Syria’s borders, some preemptive action to stop the rebels from laying their hands on such explosive material might become necessary. Israel also fears that, in its dying days, the Assad regime might seek to transfer some of these stocks to their Lebanese ally, Hezbollah. Israel and Hezbollah have some serious unresolved business between them. Israel had mounted a major invasion of Lebanon in 2006 inflicting death and destruction. The subsequent reconstruction and rebuilding work was done with considerable financial help from Iran. From Israel’s viewpoint, any military action designed to secure chemical weapons will further weaken and/or overthrow the Assad regime, which will rupture the nexus between Iran, Syria and the Hezbollah. The US and its allies in the west and the Middle East share this strategic objective about the removal of the Assad regime. But as Hezbollah has come out to support the Assad regime with its own volunteers and militia, this will further plunge the Middle East into an even wider and bigger disaster. In this situation, Israel is keen that the matter of chemical weapons in an unstable Syria be resolved, with or without real proof of their use by the regime or the rebels. However, securing the weapons is not going to be easy because they are scattered all over the place. Any large-scale military action to secure the chemical weapons might result in large explosions and scattering of the poisonous gases affecting friends and foes, as well as large-scale casualties among the civilian population. Besides, to keep them safe and secure will require stationing ground troops that would have the smell of the Afghan and Iraqi quagmire, which the United States would very much like to avoid. In other words, there are no easy choices in Syria. The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia. He can be reached at sushilpseth@yahoo.co.au