Oh, the deal worked in the sense that it kept Assad in office! You didn't think I meant it worked to deprive Assad of chemical weapons, did you?
Russia protects their ally and not the deal they pledged to enforce:
Russia vetoed Friday night a last-gasp UN resolution to extend the mandate of the international inspections of chemical weapons use in Syria.
It's the third veto of an extension for the chemical weapons investigators in the past month.
The deal, it was clear from the start, is all about preserving Assad's government--not eliminating Assad's chemical arsenal.
As for the UN, America should be introducing resolutions highlighting the slaughter of Arabs by Assad every week to make Russia veto every one of them.
And remember, Russian and American statements about this and that seem more like setting the parameters of action rather than preludes to war (which Russia would lose unless they escalate to nukes for such a small objective, and they they just ensure everyone loses).
If America and allies strike Syrian and Iranian assets while avoiding Russian personnel, the only thing we have to worry about is Russia shooting down some of the missiles that will strike Syrian facilities and units.
Russia has an obligation to contract their footprint to help us avoid killing Russians under this diplomatic dance. If Russia spreads out Russians as human shields to protect Assad, they will be at risk.
I don't anticipate war between Russia and America. There is long history of Russians and Americans fighting the allies of the other side without a direct clash.
So both sides should be taking steps to keep out of the other side's way and communicating the limits of action that don't step on serious toes.
As an aside, let me comment on the issue of who carried out the chemical attack.
Syrians were clearly hit with chemicals weaponized, even if the chemicals aren't weapons grade. That is still prohibited. Arguing that Syria would never use chemical weapons because it might encourage America to remain in Syria or to strike Syria is wrong.
Countries do things for their own reasons without deeply contemplating the effect on America--which has not stopped Assad so far, keep in mind. Assad many have feared more casualties to achieve the objective. He may have wanted to rub the noses of rebels in their defeat. He may hate those rebels with a red-hot passion. He simply may not believe his actions will affect America's actions.
And talk of the "global" outrage over chemical weapons use is wrong, I think. The outrage is a Western way of looking at poison gas based on the horrors of World War I. The Arab world doesn't have this history and Syria, Iraq, and Egypt have all used chemical weapons in the post-World War II era without being horrified at it. Assad may simply see chemical weapons as just another weapon to kill enemies. And that might be it.
So stop the talk of who "really" did it(although I can't rule out other actors) and spinning tales of why America or an enemy of Assad could be behind it to justify America remaining in Syria.
Assad does have a history of using chemical weapons even though the reasons Assad wouldn't possibly have the motive to use chemicals recently could have been used against all those past strikes, too.
UPDATE: Oh, and I expect France, Britain, and Saudi Arabia will join the strike effort. Qatar would be smart to join to help ease their isolation in the Gulf Arab world.
I just hope Turkey stays out of it. Will they let American warplanes--or perhaps just surveillance drones--use Incirlik?
And while it will be more thorough than the strike a year ago, I doubt it will last days given the risks of escalation. Russia can't beat us in a war, but we don't want to risk a war needlessly.
UPDATE: Stratfor looks at a potential strike, covering a lot of factors I mentioned.
One thing that hadn't occurred to me is that Russia doesn't really mind some strikes on Syrian or Iranian (including Iranian paid) forces if that stops them from upsetting the status quo that Russia is happy with.
Russia has their bases in western Syria and doesn't want Iran to gain ground at Russia's expense. Russia may not even be comfortable with the civilian death toll caused during taking ground that is of no importance to Russia even if Russia formally defends Syrian actions.
UPDATE: Another reason that Assad might want to use chemical weapons is that he may believe America will come after him regardless of what Assad does or does not do; and Assad may want to compel Russia to defend Assad no matter what Assad does to win in order to keep Assad in his corner when that America-Assad clash comes.
