A terrible dilemma and a great danger

AMONG the many hideous aspects of the Syrian conflict is the growing recognition that the use of chemical weapons continues in the 21st century.

It is bad enough that Syria’s civil war has not been brought to an end. But it is intolerable that children in Douma have allegedly been killed in a toxic attack.

President Bashar al-Assad is already a pariah. If he sanctioned the use of such weapons against people within the borders of his own country, then he is as repulsive a figure as Saddam Hussein.

It is deeply alarming if he has calculated that he can get away with such slaughter. It will be a disaster for the world if his example spurs other states to develop chemical weapons technology.

Britain is haunted by the memory of how poison gas was used in World War I. The use of such cruel weapons must not be normalised.

Supporters of massive retaliation against any state that uses chemical weapons will argue that a truly devastating response is required. Anything less and a dictator will assess whether the advantage gained from a chemical weapons strike will outweigh the cost of dealing with the international response.

Assad’s regime has survived the responses to its previous alleged uses of chemical weapons. In fact, thanks to Russian intervention, it seems on the verge of crushing the rebels that once posed a mortal threat to its existence.

If he escapes the grim deaths suffered by Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, other despots and autocrats will learn unfortunate lessons. They will seek to forge friendships with the Kremlin and build up arsenals of lethal weaponry.

The re-establishment of the Assad regime would be the moment when the hopes that the so-called Arab Spring would see democracy and freedom spread through the Middle East were formally laid to rest.

Nevertheless, even the most hawkish supporters of military action will worry that missile strikes could unleash a new chapter of horror in Syria, with grave consequences for the rest of the world.

Can Assad’s forces be punished without rebel groups linked to alQaeda and other extremist organisations being strengthened? The eradication of the so-called Islamic State in Syria is a necessity for the good of civilians and our own security.

The apocalyptic scenario would see Western nations topple into a war with Russia. The accidental killing of Russian military personnel could trigger a disastrous confrontation.

Above all, there is the danger that innocent Syrian civilians who have already suffered so much will be injured and killed by a botched intervention. Yet more refugees could flee for their lives, and those who are in camps today could give up any faint hope they will ever get to go home.

A key test for any intervention should be this: Will it make more likely that a Syrian child who urgently requires antibiotics will get the treatment she needs?

We must not compound misery.