Syria, photo by Freedom House via Creative Commons

With the fear of a repeat Iraq at the forefront of Americans’ minds, President Obama would be hard-pressed to garner any substantial American support for intervention.

However, that is exactly what he must do.

A year ago, Obama laid down a “red line,” claiming that the United States would not accept the use of chemical weapons. A year later, Secretary of State, John Kerry revealed that there is evidence that Syrian President Bashar-al-Assad has in fact made use of chemical weapons.

The destruction is gut wrenching: 1,429 people were killed, 426 of which were children. For the United States, refusing to intervene would not only severely damage our credibility, but also sacrifice our values.

As the leader of the free world, Obama has a special kind of force that only a U.S. president can have; by failing to intervene in Syria, Obama will severely lower his influence. Assad will escape unscathed for his atrocious use of chemical weapons.

As the Syrian war ravishes on, Assad will not remember the 426 children killed by chemical weapons. However, he will remember that he administered chemical attacks and was not punished.

If the United States intervenes, even simply by implementing naval strikes, Assad’s confidence will be crippled. By waging an attack, it is undeniably clear that the United States will not tolerate chemical weapons. Although Assad has shown a disregard for humanitarian causes, he is logical enough to realize that it is not in his best interest for the United States to get involved.

Therefore, an air or naval strike on strategic military areas within Syria would legitimize Obama’s “red line” comment and severely discourage further use of chemical weapons—all while keeping American citizens off the ground and out of the line of fire.

A second, less strategic motive for intervention in Syria would be to fulfill both American and world values. Although international entities such as the United Nations have denounced the use of chemical weapons, they lack enforcement power.

Therefore, it is essential that powerful countries, specifically the United States, fill the vacuum.

Our lack of intervention sends a powerful message to the world that restrictions originating from both the United States and international bodies—including restrictions against the use of chemical weapons—will not be enforced.

If that happens, only time will tell how the oppressive leaders around the world would view our inaction and how it would shape their future behavior. If Syria can get away with using chemical weapons, then every country that has ever considered using chemical weapons will feel they have a license to proceed without retaliation.

And if this happens, the spiral effect can—and most likely will— be catastrophic.

Not only can we prevent future deaths by intervening in Syria, we can also send a message to the rest of the world that when we set a “red line,” it is not orange or yellow, but bright red.

Only in this way can we prevent future use of chemical weapons, and solidify our authority when claiming that we will not accept certain atrocities. The only question that remains is whether Obama will stand by his word and intervene in Syria, or let political warfare and fear of public backlash stop him from avenging the 1,429 men, women and children killed in Syria by chemical weapons.

Read more Neon Tommy coverage of Syria here. 

Reach Contributor Nick Thomas here.