Russian ambassador warns Canada that Syrian conflict is Iraq redux

The chance of U.S.-led military intervention is Syria continued its drive toward inevitability as the international community receives confirmation that a chemical attack occurred earlier this month.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama spoke on Tuesday and agreed that a “firm response” was needed, further strengthening the likelihood of an attack on Syrian President Bashar Assad’s military.

While it is still not clear what role, if any, Canada would play in such an intervention, Russia's ambassador to the country is warning us to steer clear of the whole conflict.

Georgiy Mamedov compared the expected Syrian conflict to the 2003 intervention in Iraq, when U.S.-led forces invaded the country on later-refuted claims that it possessed weapons of mass destruction.

“I have a sense of déja vu. Ten years ago when I arrived in Canada, [the] first question to me was why we don’t support Western intervention in Iraq and I said it’s a tragic mistake, it’s a tragic mistake because it will only help extremists, terrorists," Mamedov said at an appearance in Ottawa on Tuesday, according to the Globe and Mail.

He went on to suggest that terrorists within the country could have launched a "primitive" chemical attack with the knowledge that it could prompt Western powers to attack Assad's forces.

[ Related: UN envoy to Syria sees evidence that chemical 'substance' ]

Russia is opposed to the idea of military intervention in Syria, and its position on the UN Security Council means its refusal would negate the chance of a UN-led military response. That lack of mandate from the UN is another similarity a Syria response would have with the 2003 Iraq invasion.

Add to that the uncertainty surrounding a smoking gun – weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the origin of the chemical attacks in Syria – and there are enough parallels to at least compare the two.

UN chemical weapons experts have confirmed that a Damascus suburb was struck by a gas attack on Aug. 21, although there is still no UN confirmation on who launched the attack.

Assad has denied using chemical weapons, although most Western authorities have dismissed that claim. Vice President Joe Biden has expressed certainty that the government was behind the attack.

[ More Brew: Stephen Harper says 'firm response' merited in Syria ]

Christian Leuprecht, associate professor of political science at the Royal Military College of Canada and Queen’s University, says there is reason for caution, considering the events surrounding the chemical attack are still unclear.

"We don't know what happened on the ground here," Leuprecht told Yahoo! Canada News.

"We don't know whether this was a rogue unit within the republican guard, for instance ... and that some commanding officer on the ground unilaterally made the decision without going up to Assad to ask for permission.

"It is unlikely. You wouldn't usually use these types of weapons without getting agreement from the boss first. Assad, he may be a heinous individual, but if nothing else he is a smart guy."

The New York Times similarly raised doubts about why Assad would launch a chemical weapon attack that he knew was likely to result in Western military intervention. Military analysts suggest, however, that the reason could be as simple as terrorizing rebel leaders or showing confidence in his ability to defy the international community.

Emile Hokayem, a military analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told the newspaper:

The idea that Syria can be compared to Iraq has its opponents, however. Both Al Jazeera and the Jerusalem Post have warned against such comparisons, with much of the argument coming down to the certainty of the threat.

"[T]he international community was not in agreement that (Iraq leader Saddam) Hussein was pursuing WMD capability,” Michael Wilner writes in the Jerusalem Post.

“In the case of Syria, however, no country – not even Assad’s allies – question that the regime has stockpiled massive amounts of chemical weapons."

Indeed, there is little doubt Assad possesses chemical weapons, but definitive confirmation they were intentionally used is still absent. That could be a matter of time, or a matter of semantics considering the U.S. appears confident.

It goes without saying that Russia will not participate in a military intervention. The question remains whether Canada will heed the warnings of that country’s ambassador.

Want to know what news is brewing in Canada?
Follow @MRCoutts on Twitter