This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/13/syria-russia-us-iran-chemical-weapons

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
If the Syrian talks are to progress, the US will have to include Iran If the Syrian talks are to progress, the US will have to include Iran
(4 days later)
As talks in Geneva between Russia and the United States enter a third day, the chances of an agreement on securing inspection and control of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, one of the largest in the world, are growing. This would mean that further use of this horrific weaponry, first banned in 1925, will not recur. Syria has already taken the first step by signing the Chemical Weapons Convention.As talks in Geneva between Russia and the United States enter a third day, the chances of an agreement on securing inspection and control of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, one of the largest in the world, are growing. This would mean that further use of this horrific weaponry, first banned in 1925, will not recur. Syria has already taken the first step by signing the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Although any agreement is welcome, in itself it will do little to end the Syrian conflict and could well enhance President Assad's diplomatic and political status and further diminish that of the opposition Syrian National Council. Even a complete eradication of the weapons will do nothing to alter the strategic calculus already heavily weighted in Assad's favour. His arsenal of aircraft, missiles and tanks can continue being deployed against an opposition which lacks these arms and which does not have the political coherence and unity of the regime. Assad's position has been further strengthened because his ally Russia has clearly taken a dramatic diplomatic lead.Although any agreement is welcome, in itself it will do little to end the Syrian conflict and could well enhance President Assad's diplomatic and political status and further diminish that of the opposition Syrian National Council. Even a complete eradication of the weapons will do nothing to alter the strategic calculus already heavily weighted in Assad's favour. His arsenal of aircraft, missiles and tanks can continue being deployed against an opposition which lacks these arms and which does not have the political coherence and unity of the regime. Assad's position has been further strengthened because his ally Russia has clearly taken a dramatic diplomatic lead.
Implementation of a Geneva agreement in the form of a security council resolution is widely seen as desirable, but for Russia it is unacceptable because it would be under chapter 7 of the UN charter, implying the use of military force. In this it is supported by China and several other council members, including Argentina and Pakistan.Implementation of a Geneva agreement in the form of a security council resolution is widely seen as desirable, but for Russia it is unacceptable because it would be under chapter 7 of the UN charter, implying the use of military force. In this it is supported by China and several other council members, including Argentina and Pakistan.
Russia, backed by China, has already blocked three previous draft resolutions in the past two years condemning Assad's government. Early proclamations in Washington, London and Paris that a resolution would be under chapter 7 have been wrongfooted by Russia's diplomatic offensive in the seven days following the St Petersburg G20 summit. And, in a striking example of Russian "soft power", Putin himself wrote an article in Thursday's New York Times.Russia, backed by China, has already blocked three previous draft resolutions in the past two years condemning Assad's government. Early proclamations in Washington, London and Paris that a resolution would be under chapter 7 have been wrongfooted by Russia's diplomatic offensive in the seven days following the St Petersburg G20 summit. And, in a striking example of Russian "soft power", Putin himself wrote an article in Thursday's New York Times.
The muddled diplomacy of the west – a lost parliamentary vote in Westminster, on military action compounded by President Obama's failure to act on his own self-declared "red line" on chemical weapons – has highlighted a troubling weakness in the face of the depravity of the Syrian conflict. Furthermore, Britain and France are excluded from the diplomatic process ensuing in Geneva, strengthening the position of Russia, now the lead nation on the issue, and weakening that of the west overall. The French draft resolution before the security council, which ambitiously includes referral of the Syrian conflict to the international criminal court and "further necessary measures" in the event of Syrian non-compliance with inspections, is already overtaken by the diplomacy in Geneva which, given Russia's lead, effectively excludes these measures.The muddled diplomacy of the west – a lost parliamentary vote in Westminster, on military action compounded by President Obama's failure to act on his own self-declared "red line" on chemical weapons – has highlighted a troubling weakness in the face of the depravity of the Syrian conflict. Furthermore, Britain and France are excluded from the diplomatic process ensuing in Geneva, strengthening the position of Russia, now the lead nation on the issue, and weakening that of the west overall. The French draft resolution before the security council, which ambitiously includes referral of the Syrian conflict to the international criminal court and "further necessary measures" in the event of Syrian non-compliance with inspections, is already overtaken by the diplomacy in Geneva which, given Russia's lead, effectively excludes these measures.
Other strategic consequences for the Middle East arise, even if there is a successful resolution of the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal. US policy has been viewed with apprehension by key allies such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. But the greatest unease lies in Israel. On Wednesday Danny Ayalon, the former deputy foreign minister and ambassador to the US, spoke for many when he said that "American deterrence capability had been damaged and, as a result, Israel's deterrence capability has also been damaged". This could have grave consequences for Israeli strategic calculations about Iran's burgeoning nuclear capability. There is now considerable doubt in Israel that Obama would ever authorise a strike against Iranian nuclear installations. If talks between the permanent five members of the security council plus Germany and Iran do not therefore make serious inroads then the chances of an Israeli strike are likely to grow.Other strategic consequences for the Middle East arise, even if there is a successful resolution of the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal. US policy has been viewed with apprehension by key allies such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. But the greatest unease lies in Israel. On Wednesday Danny Ayalon, the former deputy foreign minister and ambassador to the US, spoke for many when he said that "American deterrence capability had been damaged and, as a result, Israel's deterrence capability has also been damaged". This could have grave consequences for Israeli strategic calculations about Iran's burgeoning nuclear capability. There is now considerable doubt in Israel that Obama would ever authorise a strike against Iranian nuclear installations. If talks between the permanent five members of the security council plus Germany and Iran do not therefore make serious inroads then the chances of an Israeli strike are likely to grow.
On the sidelines of the Geneva meeting the US secretary of state, John Kerry, and the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, have met Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN envoy on Syria. Welcome though this is, it is still a long way from devising a diplomatic strategy that would help to end the Syrian bloodletting. For that to happen, both sides have to join the discussions. A more difficult question is an invitation to Iran, Syria's main ally, to participate. Washington would find this difficult but it might draw inspiration from a previous Geneva conference in 1954 when the US was forced to sit down with its arch foe China. Without that, a peace agreement ending French involvement in Vietnam would have been impossible.On the sidelines of the Geneva meeting the US secretary of state, John Kerry, and the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, have met Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN envoy on Syria. Welcome though this is, it is still a long way from devising a diplomatic strategy that would help to end the Syrian bloodletting. For that to happen, both sides have to join the discussions. A more difficult question is an invitation to Iran, Syria's main ally, to participate. Washington would find this difficult but it might draw inspiration from a previous Geneva conference in 1954 when the US was forced to sit down with its arch foe China. Without that, a peace agreement ending French involvement in Vietnam would have been impossible.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.