The use of chemical weapons was the trigger behind this push for war, and the most effective exit strategy for the Russians was to focus on putting the Syrian chemical arsenal in the hands of the international community.

The main objective of this strategy is to deprive the US from any legitimate reason for a military action. By involving the G20 and UN, it also serves to break the bipolar nature of the debate around the Syrian crisis between the US and Russia.

This is not the first time that the Syrian regime finds itself under international threat. The Syrian regime was in crisis in 2005 after the assassination of Hariri.

The Russian proposal may to be the diplomatic equivalent of the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which worked in 2005 and perhaps this solution will work this time. However, it is possible there will soon be further conditions for settlement from the Americans.

An agreement on chemical weapons could be the door to settlement in Syria.  Although it is just the beginning as the US is likely to increase its political requests, while Russia will adopt an increasingly hardline diplomatic tone.

The US is likely to seize the opportunity for agreement on “Geneva II” by adding new elements to the settlement proposal. The US will keep the option of a military attack on the table until it ensures that most of its political requests are included.

Moreover, the US is also likely to try to link this agreement to broader regional objectives related to the settlement and the destiny of Hezbollah and some Palestinian resistance groups.

If the US administration is really keen to link the settlement in Syria to a regional one, it would create some serious political risks for the regional anti-Syria group. Turkey and KSA might face political upheaval similar to what happened with MB in Egypt or Qatar. John Kerry and his team might pay the price of a desperately hopeful analysis of the potential for regional settlements.

Dr. Amer Al Sabaileh

© Riproduzione Riservata