09-09-2013, 06:50 PM
(09-09-2013, 05:06 PM)username Wrote: This whole thing with Russia and allowing the UN to supposedly oversee Syria's chemical weapons stockpile is REALLY going to add a damper to any of Obama's plans to win support to conduct a military strike on Syria. Unless something changes (i.e., there's another chemical weapons attack), I don't think we'll be bombing Syria in the near future.
It's like watching an international poker tournament with very high stakes.
At the table: Obama, Kerry, Assad, Putin (and ki-Moon attempting to keep the game clean).
IMO, Kerry threw out the "turn over all chemical weapons to divert a military strike" option in response to the London interview question so as not to give the impression that the US was all gung-ho and committed to bombing, no matter what. (My inference only based on what I've read; not something stated or a confirmed fact.)
I don't think it was an option that Kerry had the authority to formally propose. But, Putin surprisingly tossed in some chips and publicly called Kerry's bluff.
Now, the White House is claiming that it was hard-core pressure by the US that spawned this potential compromise solution, while simultaneously using Assad's willingness to consider it as a sign of his guilt and stating that any promises he makes cannot be trusted (and therefore Congress should be more motivated to vote in favor of a strike). Hedging.
ki-Moon supports the confiscation and destruction of chemical weapons, under the UN's supervision. At the same time, he continues to remind the players and bystanders that the results of his UN team's investigation into who's responsible for the attacks are not yet conclusive and any retaliatory action / military strike would be premature anyway.
The game should be in play for at least another week now. That's how long Kerry's given Assad; that's how long Assad has to collaborate with Putin and Lavrov to get the weapons turned over (or come up with another strategy?).
Gonna be interesting to see everyone's hands next week...