The Russian initiative on the Syria crisis has had an immediate impact on the international arena, underlining that the US military option was not a preferable solution for many, and that the US president failed to build a case against the Bashar Al-Assad regime. US Secretary of State John Kerry opened the way for the political solution inadvertently in London three days ago by suggesting that Al-Assad could avoid a military strike for alleged use of chemical weapons that killed hundreds — the US says more than 1,400 civilians — outside Damascus last month by turning over “every single bit of his weapons stock to the international community within a week”. In just a few hours, the Russian government completed the thought of Kerry by announcing an initiative to avert US military action, just as the US Congress was considering offering its authorisation. Obama has tried to convince the US general public and legislators to support a strike against selected targets, but the administration has faced scepticism on all levels, with some critics saying the president could not build a solid argument in the face of mounting questions related to the intentions of the United States in Syria. “In trying so hard to convince everyone that Syria will not be another Afghanistan or Iraq, Kerry and others speaking for the administration — including President Obama himself — have undermined their case for a strike,” Eugene Robinson, of The Washington Post, wrote earlier this week. Despite the fact that Obama asserted he had the authority to order airstrikes, even without congressional authorisation, the general public has shown little to no enthusiasm for possible US military action for fear of repeating the same scenarios of past US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most recent surveys show that two thirds of Americans want Congress to have the final say over the decision. In one recent poll conducted by US Today and PEW, three in four Americans say airstrikes are likely to make the situation in the Middle East worse. Six in 10 say there are “no good options” for the United States in how to deal with Syria. Such attitudes find support from the Russians. “All the more, politicians share our estimation that a military solution will lead to an outburst of terrorism, both in Syria and in neighbouring countries,” said Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, Monday. The fact that Moscow turned Kerry's rhetorical argument into a practical proposal within hours turned the heated discussions in the US upside down before Obama's speech to the nation last night. The US president and senior officials argue that the administration's “red lines” on Syria have worked — that there would be no talk of disarming the regime absent a credible threat to strike. “I think what we're seeing is that a credible threat of a military strike from the United States, supported potentially by a number of other countries around the world, has given them pause and makes them consider whether or not they would make this move,” Obama told NBC News. Meanwhile, the Russian proposal on transferring control of Syrian chemical weapons appeared to be gaining traction. France announced it would draft a UN Security Council resolution to put the plan into effect, and China and Iran voiced some support for the initiative. From the French viewpoint, the world would be able to judge the intentions of Russia and China, which until now have blocked efforts to sanction Syria for its actions during its two-and-a-half-year-long civil war. Also, it is expected that the proposal may carry weight in the US Congress. The feeling in Washington and in most capitals concerning the situation in Syria is that the Obama administration could not ignore the Russian proposal and proceed with a military strike, even though the diplomatic initiative may strengthen Moscow's influence in the Middle East. According to the Stratfor global intelligence think tank, the United States “would come off as weak and indecisive” while Moscow would come off as “the sound of reason in a war effort that no country is particularly enthused about”. Some conservative experts are less wowed by the Russian diplomatic foray, however. “This is not a serious alternative to military action. It is a stalling tactic to allow Al-Assad to retain his chemical weapons capacity — and other weapons that have killed far more people. It is also a distraction from the real issue, which is not Al-Assad's chemical weapons stockpile but the continuing existence of the Al-Assad regime itself,” Max Boot, Jeane J Kirkpatrick senior fellow for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote for the Commentary website. The language of both Obama and Kerry have left many Americans wondering about the course of US policy towards Syria, feeling that the Russians have managed to corner the president and push him to make concessions to avert confrontation in the Levant. Indeed, for many, Obama's efforts have been compromised by a “muddled message” and “confusing policies” that have shaped the president's outlook in his second term in office.
