Obama: Russia’s chemical weapons proposal may be a “significant breakthrough”

Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton met with Obama Monday, then said that if Syria immediately surrenders its chemical weapons, “that would be an important step, but this cannot be another excuse for delay or obstruction.”

Gen. Salim Idriss, chief of staff of the rebel Free Syrian Army, described the Syrian government’s acceptance of the Russian proposal as a “new lie” aimed at heading off intervention.

Kerry was in his plane over the Atlantic, heading back to the United State from London, when he received a call from Lavrov. Lavrov said Russia was “willing to engage” on the issue of chemical weapons inspections and surrender of Syria’s chemical stocks, and he made specific reference to the possibility of U.S. action.

Kerry “expressed serious skepticism and said the United States was ‘not going to play games,’” said a U.S. official, describe the conversation. While Kerry told Lavrov the United States would consider a serious proposal, the official made clear that Kerry did not consider the Russian statement Monday to be one. Kerry “also made clear that [the Russian statement] cannot or will not be a reason to delay our efforts with Congress to authorize the president’s proposal” for a military strike, and he cautioned the Russians not to portray their gambit as a “joint U.S.-Russian proposal,” the official said, adding: “We have seen no details; we have seen no ‘proposal.’”

Kerry “still feels it is not possible” to arrange an adequate inspection and verifiable destruction of Syrian weapons in any reasonable time frame, the official said. The Obama administration had “batted around” in the past the idea of an ultimatum to Syria on giving up its chemical weapons, but that the idea had died internally when it was judged too complicated and likely to provoke Syrian subterfuge and delay, the official noted.

The Post notes that Lavrov had also previously discussed the idea in conversations with Kerry, including a telephone call last Thursday, the official said, but never in the context of the proposed U.S. military action.

On Monday, during a meeting with Syrian foreign minister Moualem, Lavrov said Russia would ask Syria to relinquish control of its chemical weapons to international monitors to prevent a U.S. strike. Lavrov also called on Syria to sign and ratify the Convention on Chemical Weapons, which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons.

“If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country will avoid strikes, we will immediately begin working with Damascus,” Lavrov said. “We call on the Syrian leadership not only to agree on a statement of storage of chemical weapons under international supervision, but also to their subsequent destruction.”

Moualem, in response, said Syria “welcomes the Russian initiative,” but he did not say whether his country would agree to what Russia was asking. “We also welcome the wisdom of the Russian leadership, which is trying to prevent American aggression against our people,” Moulaem said.

In his White House news briefing, Blinken said, “We want to take a hard look at the proposal” and talk to the Russians about it. He noted that the international community has tried for twenty years to get Syria to sign on to the Chemical Weapons Convention and that Assad only last week refused to admit that he even has chemical weapons, “despite overwhelming evidence.”

He said U.S. intelligence believes that Assad ultimately controls the deployment of chemical weapons in Syria.

“We would welcome Assad giving up his chemical weapons and doing it in a verifiable manner,” Blinken said, but added that “unfortunately the track record to date” does not inspire confidence.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement that she, too, would welcome the transfer and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons.

“I believe that Russia can be most effective in encouraging the Syrian president to stop any use of chemical weapons and place all his chemical munitions, as well as storage facilities, under United Nations control until they can be destroyed,” she said.

Feinstein noted that UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon and British prime minister David Cameron have already signaled support for the plan.

“I think if the UN would accept the responsibility of maintaining these [chemical weapons] facilities, seeing that they’re secure and that Syria would announce that it is giving up any chemical weapons programs or delivery system vehicles that may have been armed, then I think we’ve got something,” she said.

Representative Mike Rogers (R-Michigan), the chairman of the House’s intelligence committee, expressed cautious support. “Just the fact the Russians have moved tells me having this debate on military action is having a positive outcome,” he told the Times in a telephone interview.

Experts note that an effort to account for Syria’s chemical weapons, even if Syria agreed to cooperate, would be a laborious and prolonged effort, especially since Assad’s government has enveloped its chemical arsenal in secrecy for decades. The Times notes that as UN inspectors discovered in Iraq after the Persian Gulf War in 1991, even an invasive inspection regime can take years to account for chemical stockpiles and never be certain of complete compliance, something that President George W. Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003.