Hezbollah has Chemical Weapons? Not So Fast

The Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyasa reported on September 3 that an explosion in southern Lebanon that occurred on July 14, 2009 was a Hezbollah arms depot. Seemingly giving credence to this claim is four days after the explosion the UN observer force trying access the site was blocked by a mob of protesters who then attacked the UN representatives. What made this report stand out was not the fact that the arms depot was a violation of UN Resolution 1701, but the claim that the depot contained chemical weapons.

In the last few years it has become difficult to discuss the existence of chemical weapons in the Middle East because of the pre-Iraq war intelligence claims. The case of Syria, one of Hezbollah’s benefactors, is quite different. In fact, Jane’s Intelligence reported:

Syrian defence sources told Jane's that during a 26 July (2007) test to weaponise a 500 km 'Scud C' with a mustard gas warhead, an explosion occurred in a laboratory adjacent to a chemical agent storage facility located in a Syrian military camp in Aleppo. The explosion killed 15 Syrian military personnel and "dozens" of Iranian missile weaponisation engineers, the sources said.

"The blast dispersed chemical agents (including VX and Sarin nerve agents and mustard blister agent) across the storage facility and outside. Other Iranian engineers were seriously injured with chemical burns to exposed body parts not protected by safety overalls."

Given this information, along with a multitude of other nongovernment sources, it is clear that Syria does indeed maintain a chemical weapons capability. This does not mean however that Syria would then give these weapons to Hezbollah. While it is widely known that both Syria and Iran support Hezbollah with money and arms it is unlikely that either country would want to lose direct control over this kind of special weaponry. We can safely assume that if Hezbollah possessed, then used chemical weapons against Israel that the retaliation against Syria and Iran would be substantial. Just like current U.S. policy, Israel does not differentiate between chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. An attack against the Jewish state with a weapon of mass destruction would invite a nuclear retaliation; something that neither Iran nor Syria would want to invite.

Furthermore, excerpts from the UN investigation into the explosion do not make any mention of the presence of chemical weapons. The chemical weapons that Syria is thought to possess are persistent, meaning that any release could remain in the area depending on weather patterns. Since the variety of reports on the incident do not mention any inspectors exhibiting any ill effects from the site investigation it is unlikely that chemical weapons were present.

We must keep in mind that while the possibility of Hezbollah procuring chemical weapons from Syria is remote the Middle East arms race taking place between the Arab nations and the Iranian-Syrian alliance could always prompt a change in policy in the near future. In this case only time will tell.