Many Russians believe that the Obama Administration is eager to find a pretext to strike Syria. However, this belief is totally off-base. Having ended two wars, Obama and his administration definitely do not want to start a third one. They realize that a strike against Syria will trigger a response from other states, particularly Iran, which is likely to send its troops to Syria as a reaction to the American involvement in the Syrian conflict. Then an attack on Iran would have to be considered as well. And the Americans have enough problems on their hands as it is—it is still unclear what the consequences of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be. There is actually nothing worse for the Americans than rushing into the Syrian war. Obama resists it as much as he can, but he is being pressured by the foreign policy hawks, and he gave in by declaring that he is prepared to authorize a military strike against Syria.

I think it was a serious error on his part, as he has nothing to lose, since he is no longer up for reelection. He is not planning, like some other leaders, to run for office again four years later. Therefore, he could simply hold his own by saying, “I have ended two wars and will not start the third; I will adhere to international law and the Security Council prerogatives and will not use force until the U.N. Commission makes its final determination as to which side had used chemical weapons. Getting involved in a new war at this point would mean erasing all the accomplishments of the recent years and essentially returning to the Bush policies that have thrust the country into an unprecedented foreign and domestic economic crisis. Now, despite the Obama administration’s erroneous decision on being prepared to launch a military action, a real chance to avoid it has emerged.

However, it should be remembered that discovering, sealing, and subsequently destroying chemical weapons in Syria will require Bashar Assad’s cooperation, since no one but him can cooperate on this issue. Then the Americans will have to recognize Assad and shelve their demands for his removal. Another condition for the proposal’s successful implementation is at the very least a ceasefire. It is virtually impossible to ensure the safekeeping of chemical weapons—let alone their removal and destruction— while a civil war is raging. It is an extremely complex and dangerous undertaking. Even Russia has faced enormous challenges on its own territory while destroying its chemical weapons in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention it signed. Besides, Assad’s signing the Convention and its ratification by the parliament would effectively legitimize the Syrian regime. Russia has no problems with it, but it is a very sensitive issue for the West. It appears, though, that despite all the challenges that the process entails, the proposal to subject the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons to international control does provide prospects for the future. And the very fact that the Americans indicated their readiness to discuss this possibility indicates that they are now prepared to change their policy, since the military intervention will yield no positive results from any possible angle.