Former U.S. officials warned lawmakers on Wednesday that U.S. inaction in Syria will lead to an Iranian "victory" in the region and empower the rogue regime to further ramp up its nuclear arms program.
With nearly 100,000 killed in the years-long civil war between Syrian rebels and President Bashar al-Assad, the time to launch a targeted military strike aimed at degrading Assad’s ability to launch air attacks is now, according to former Bush administration national security adviser Elliott Abrams.
"There is an option for U.S. airstrikes" that systematically target Assad’s war planes and military bases, Abrams told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), which is weighing the pros and cons of American military intervention in Syria.
If Assad is permitted to stay in power, Iran and its jihadist allies will declare victory, Abrams warned.
"A one-time strike that largely eliminated Assad’s air power and ability to use those bases for a period of time would affect the military balance" and significantly weaken Syria’s largest backers, including Iran and Russia, Abrams said.
Though minimal U.S. action is possible, military leaders have refused to provide the White House and Congress with a proposal, Abrams said.
"I think this committee should demand a military plan," Abrams said. "If you haven’t seen a military plan its because the military doesn’t want to give you one. They should be forced to give you" workable options.
Iran, Russia, and the terror group Hezbollah are heavily invested in keeping Assad in power, the experts said.
"We’re facing an Iranian victory" in Syria, Abrams said. If Assad remains, the world will view that outcome as "our defeat by Iran."
The United States’ primary goal should be "preventing an Iranian victory that leads many countries in the region, and particularly Iran, [to conclude] that the U.S. is withdrawing from the region, and it can advance its interests, become the hegemonic power in the region, and develop nuke weapons," he said.
Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon (R., Calif.) warned that the United States has limited military options due to defense budget known as sequestration.
Even a minimal U.S. airstrike could be difficult to muster "at a time when we’re cutting a trillion dollars out of our defense, a third of our aircraft are grounded now, people are not up to speed, we couldn’t put them in an aircraft now and say go," McKeon said.
"We know if sequestration continues, we’ll be [forcing] another 100,000 out of our army," McKeon said. "The world is becoming more dangerous every day and we’re cutting back our ability to do anything about these issues."
The White House’s ongoing refusal to ramp up action in Syria—particularly in the wake of Assad’s use of chemical weapons—is causing regional allies to lose faith in the United States, according to Ambassador Fred Hof, a former State Department official who most recently served as the Obama administration’s special adviser for the transition in Syria.
"The key problem affecting [our] allies and friends is the [Assad] regime’s mass terror camp against vulnerable populations," Hof said. "Ending it should be our top priority."
Russia in particular must be pressured to stop providing the Assad regime with weapons and support.
"We should be urging Moscow to rein in its client," Hof said. "We should make it clear to Russia that if the terror campaign … does not stop we will reserve the right to take steps we deem appropriate."
Hof stopped short of fully embracing U.S. military action against Syria but warned that the Obama administration’s ambiguous policy is fueling unrest.
"The U.S. should be in charge of determining who gets what" in terms of weaponry, Hof said. "The jihadists and the regime are already armed to the teeth. The Syrian nationalists are the ones who need the help."
Although the White House claimed that it would ramp up efforts to arm the Syrian rebels following its determination that Assad used chemical weapons, this has yet to take place.
"Chemical weapons were used, the administration said its response was going to increase significantly assistance to the armed resistance," Hof said. "I definitely think that needs to happen and quickly."
Abrams added, "The president should prove he wasn’t bluffing."
He also wondered why it is that Israel was able to carry out at least three military campaigns in Syria, while America "with all our stealthy technology," claims there is nothing it can do.
As the conflict rages in Syria, the country is quickly becoming a magnet for foreign fighters and jihadi terrorists, according to former State Department analyst Mona Yacoubian.
"Radical elements have been gaining ground and imposing their harsh version of Islamic rule," she said.
"Syria is incredibly attractive to jihadists, even more so then Iraq," said Yacoubian, who warned that once the dust settles, al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists could have access to Assad’s chemical weapons stockpile.
"I’m struck by the message that we leave that after two years, the position of the U.S is, ‘This is awful but there is nothing we can do,’" said Abrams.