Can we get Assad's chemical weapons out of Syria by the end of the year? If so, that frees us to resume pressuring Assad to go without the fear that Assad could use chemical weapons on our forces or against an ally that helps us--on top of protecting civilians from that particular brand of horror.
And resuming our pressure, support for rebels, and threat of military force will destroy Assad's pledge to his supporters that he can defeat the rebellion in six months under the shield of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement.
I did say that if the rebellion endures the suspension of our pressure while the chemical weapons are eliminated that it would give us more freedom of action to focus on getting rid of Assad.
As originally portrayed, the deal was stupid, giving Assad at least a year of respite as we destroyed chemical weapons. But if we can implement it by getting the chemical weapons out of Syria quickly, then it doesn't matter how long it takes to destroy them at sea. Assad loses his shield much faster than he counted on.
So expect Assad to interfere with that timetable as much as possible as he realizes what the December 31st deadline means.
If we pull that off, I will retract every dismissive thing I've said about this deal and the embarrassment we suffered leading up to the deal, and congratulate President Obama for a true episode of smart diplomacy.
In the short run, I won't care if this approach was Kerry's plan all along or whether seasoned career diplomats snatched a chance at victory from the impromptu jaws that proposed defeat.
And I'd love to see Lavrov's annual performance review with Putin sitting on the other side of the desk, if that happens.
UPDATE: Of course, letting up our already weak efforts to support rebels just gives the jihadis more time to gain ground:
Syrian rebels from an Islamist alliance formed last month have occupied bases and warehouses belonging to a Western-backed rebel group on the Turkish border, rebels and activists said on Saturday.
Fighters from the Islamic Front, a union of six major rebel groups, took control of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) bases at the Bab al-Hawa crossing on the northwestern border with Turkey late on Friday night, the opposition sources said.
I guess nobody in the White House insisted on a thorough post-deal plan.
Let's have a sense of urgency in completing the removal of chemical weapons and their raw materials from Syria.
UPDATE: Strategypage writes that there really aren't chemical weapons waiting to be removed from Syria. There are chemicals in special storage containers that can hold the corrosive poison gas before filling munitions:
On December 7th the UN verified that the special chemical plants that produce fresh Syrian chemical weapons had also been destroyed, along with all associated equipment. Of course Syria can rebuild these plants and produce fresh supplies of nerve gas and other noxious chemicals. New special shells, bombs and rocket warheads can also be manufactured or bought from Russia. But now the equipment Syria had already accumulated is destroyed and the UN hopes to have the chemical weapons still in their special storage containers moved out of the country by the end of the year and destroyed. The destruction process will take place far out at sea so that even if there is an accident the deadly chemicals will not reach any civilian populations. Or at least that is the plan. [Emphasis added]
So that's the story on what we want to remove from Syria.
There could be a small delay. But what's this "priority" qualifier, now?
A roadmap adopted earlier this month by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to rid Syria of its chemical stockpile, says "priority" weapons have to be removed from the country by December 31.
"This may not be possible perhaps because of the technical issues that we have encountered," OPCW director Ahmet Uzumcu said on arrival in Oslo, where he will on Tuesday receive the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of his organisation.
"But... a few days delay wouldn't be much from my point of view."
A few days? No, that doesn't matter. But 6 more months? That matters. Does this mean that the plan is for other "non-priority" chemical stockpiles to remain inside Syria?
If so, this changes that potential light at the end of the tunnel a great deal. If so, this makes it less likely that we can bend this agreement to our advantage.
