This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/world/middleeast/kerry-announces-saudi-support-for-syrian-strike.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Kerry Announces Saudi Support for Syrian Strike White House Adds Arab Support as It and Assad Use TV to Press Their Cases
(about 9 hours later)
PARIS — Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that Saudi Arabia had agreed to support military intervention in Syria. WASHINGTON — At home and abroad, the Obama administration redoubled its campaign Sunday to build support for military action against Syria, saying it had won the backing of Saudi Arabia for a strike while still laboring to persuade a deeply reluctant Congress.
At a news conference on the sidebar of a meeting with Arab League foreign ministers, Mr. Kerry noted that he had received Saudi assurances of support for what he called “the strike.” But Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, thrust himself into the debate as well, rejecting President Obama’s claim that his forces used chemical weapons on civilians outside Damascus last month. In an interview with Charlie Rose, scheduled to be broadcast on Monday, Mr. Assad warned that if Syria was attacked, it would retaliate.
Qatar’s foreign minister, Khalid Al Attiya, who joined Mr. Kerry at the news conference, stopped short of explicitly endorsing a military strike but said his nation would back foreign intervention. With Mr. Obama scheduled to press his case on Monday in interviews with six major television networks, the prospect of a split-screen moment loomed, featuring the two main antagonists in the international debate over how to deal with Syria.
Mr. Attiya said supporters of the President Bashar al-Assad of Syria had already intervened in the conflict, an allusion to Iran and Hezbollah. He called on “all countries to intervene to protect the Syrian people” and said that Qatar was looking at what it could provide to help safeguard the Syrian population. In Paris, Secretary of State John Kerry said the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, told him that Saudi Arabia would support an American-led strike. Qatar also said it would back foreign intervention, though it did not explicitly endorse airstrikes. Mr. Kerry said he was hopeful that additional countries would indicate support for a strong response in coming days.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar were among the first backers of the Syrian opposition that is fighting Mr. Assad and provided weapons for the rebels. In Washington, the White House chief of staff, Denis R. McDonough, said the vote in Congress over whether to authorize military force would be closely watched by Iran and Hezbollah as a test of American resolve to respond to a chemical weapons attack by Syrian forces.
Mr. Kerry has been at the forefront of the Obama administration’s efforts to build international support for airstrikes against the Syrian government in the wake of a suspected chemical attacks on Aug. 21 that killed hundreds of people in the suburbs of Damascus. The question now for Congress is, “are there consequences for a dictator who would have used those weapons to gas to death hundreds of children?” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”
A statement calling for a strong international response, one that held Mr. Assad responsible for the chemical attack, has been signed by more than a dozen nations, including the United States. The statement does not explicitly endorse military action. With Congress returning from a recess on Tuesday, the White House is trying to pivot from establishing what happened in the outskirts of Damascus early on Aug. 21 to what the world should do about it. Mr. McDonough insisted that there was no longer a debate over intelligence indicating that a horrific chemical weapons attack had taken place.
Mr. Kerry said that he expected additional nations to sign in the next 24 hours and noted that he planned to brief lawmakers after he returned to Washington on Monday. But the depth of resistance in Congress was again on display Sunday, with lawmakers from both parties appearing on television news programs to voice opposition to a strike, either because they viewed it as a slippery slope toward another Middle East war or because they worried that it might strengthen Syrian rebels with ties to Al Qaeda.
“We’re being told that there are two choices: do nothing or bomb Syria,” Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat from Massachusetts, said on the CNN program “State of the Union.” “Clearly there have to be some other choices in between. We ought to explore them.”
Representative Michael McCaul, the Texas Republican who is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he could not support military action because “once we hit, this is an act of war.” He added, “Little wars start big wars, and we have to remember that.”
In the next phase of his push on Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama is set to meet with Senate Democrats at their weekly lunch on Tuesday, a Democrat with knowledge of the plans said. On Monday, the House Democratic leadership is scheduled to go over strategy with Mr. McDonough.
Though the Senate is friendlier turf than the Republican-controlled House, the White House is far from assured of victory there, either. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, has appealed to skeptical Democrats by urging them to vote yes on a motion to end debate on the resolution, which requires 60 votes and is the first step toward passage.
Mr. Reid is telling them they are then free to vote their conscience on final passage, which requires a simple majority of 51. Some Democrats believe that they could lose as many as 15 Democratic senators on final passage. Whether they could find the 10 or so Republican votes they would need is not certain.
Among Republicans who spoke out on Sunday against military action were Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has steadfastly opposed American engagement in Syria, and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who defenders of the president note had advocated a military operation back in June to secure or destroy Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles.
On the ABC News program “This Week,” Mr. Cruz said Mr. Obama had not laid out a clear military mission. “I don’t think that’s the job of our military, to be defending amorphous international norms,” he said.
On Sunday evening, Mr. Obama dropped in on a dinner that Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. held for Republican senators at his residence.
Overseas, the administration’s efforts to marshal support appeared to be bearing more fruit. At a news conference in Paris, Mr. Kerry said of Saudi Arabia: “They have supported the strike, and they support taking action. They believe that it’s very important to do that.”
Qatar’s foreign minister, Khalid al-Attiyah, said military intervention was justified because foreign supporters of Mr. Assad had already joined the fight on the side of the Syrian government — an allusion to Iran and Hezbollah, the militant Islamist group in Lebanon.
Asked if Qatar would join in an American-led attack, he said, “Qatar is currently studying with its friends and the United Nations what it could provide in order to protect the Syrian people.”
Saudi Arabia and Qatar were among the first backers of the rebels who are fighting Mr. Assad. They have provided weapons for the opposition, and there has been speculation that each would participate in an American-led military operation.
Mr. Kerry asserted on Saturday that the number of countries prepared to participate militarily was “in the double digits.” Apart from France, however, he has not identified which might join the United States or what their military contribution might be.
Mr. Kerry’s four-day trip to Europe was initially intended primarily to focus on ways to bolster the Middle East peace negotiations. But with an eye on the Congressional debate, he has prodded countries to sign a statement that blames the Syrian government for the chemical weapons attack and calls for a “strong international response.”
About a dozen nations have signed the statement, which American officials circulated last week during a Group of 20 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia. Mr. Kerry said he hoped to get more nations to sign before returning to Washington on Monday.
The White House’s lobbying offensive was kicked off by Mr. McDonough, who appeared on all five major Sunday news programs. He previewed a key argument that Mr. Obama will make in his Monday interviews and in a speech to the nation on Tuesday.
“This is not Iraq or Afghanistan, this is not Libya, this is not an extended air campaign,” Mr. McDonough said on CNN. “This is something that’s targeted, limited and effective so as to underscore that he should not think that he can get away with this again.”

Mark Landler reported from Washington, Michael R. Gordon from London, and Michael S. Schmidt from Salt Lake City. Jeremy W. Peters contributed reporting from Washington, and Brian Stelter from New York.