The “Framework” has been agreed to among a lot of fanfare — and criticism.
Now comes the hard work: Agreeing on those pesky little details and putting some meat on those framework bones.
Predictably, even before the framework is totally understood, some are already picking at what they believe is a carcass. More on that later…
First some follow-up on the “Framework.”
A day after reaching an agreement with Russia on securing and destroying Syria’s massive chemical weapons stockpiles, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Israel to brief Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the agreement.
According to AP’s Larry Downing, “Kerry sent a strong warning to Syria, saying `the threat of force is real’ if it does not carry out an internationally brokered agreement to hand over its chemical weapons.” “We cannot have hollow words in the conduct of international affairs…These are crimes against humanity and they cannot be tolerated,” Kerry warned, according to the AP.
How about Israel?
Again, AP’s Downing:
The deal was greeted with cautious optimism in Israel, where leaders expressed satisfaction that Syria, a bitter enemy, could be stripped of dangerous weapons but also pessimism about whether Syrian President Bashar Assad will comply.
Israel has repeatedly voiced concern that Assad, locked in a two-year-old civil war, may fire his chemical weapons at Israel in a bout of desperation or that the weapons could fall into the hands of Hezbollah or other hostile groups fighting in the Syrian civil war.
Perhaps more critically, the Israelis also fear that a tepid international response to Syria could encourage Iran to press forward with what is widely believed to be a nuclear weapons program…
[::]
“The world needs to ensure that radical regimes don’t have weapons of mass destruction because as we have learned in Syria if rogue regimes have weapons of mass destruction they will use them,” Netanyahu said.
“The determination the international community shows regarding Syria will have a direct impact on the Syrian regime’s patron Iran. Iran must understand the consequences of its continued defiance of the international community by its pursuit toward nuclear weapons,” he added.
He said the deal proved that “if diplomacy has any chance to work, it must be coupled with a credible military threat.”
However, according to Downing:
Ahead of Kerry’s arrival, some Israeli politicians voiced skepticism, saying Assad cannot be trusted.
Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said the plan was more “substantive” than earlier proposals, but warned the agreement’s deadline was not speedy enough and Assad could try to hide weapons.
“We know Assad. All kinds of things could happen,” he said, adding that an agreement on chemical weapons should not absolve Assad of punishment for the acts he has committed against the Syrian people.
But how about Syria? Well, Syrian officials call the Framework a “victory.”
A high-ranking Syrian official has welcomed the U.S.-Russian agreement to secure and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, calling it a “victory” for Damascus.
The comments Sunday from Minister of National Reconciliation Ali Haidar to Russian state news agency RIA Novosti are the first by a senior Syrian government official on the deal struck a day earlier in Geneva.
RIA Novosti quoted Haidar as saying the agreement “will help Syrians get out of the crisis” and also “averted a war against Syria by removing the pretext for those who wanted to unleash one.”
[::]
Haidar credited Russia with brokering the deal.
Let us not forget the Syrian opposition.
The head of the opposition Syrian Supreme Military Council said on Saturday a U.S.-Russian agreement to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons was a blow to the two-and-a-half-year uprising to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power.
General Selim Idris said the deal would allow Assad to escape being held accountable for killing hundreds of civilians in a poison gas attack on Damascus on August 21. Assad has denied responsibility for the attack.
Care to hear what our inimitable, inseparable Senatorial twins have to say?
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on Sunday asserted that an agreement between the United States and Russia that met President Barack Obama’s goal of securing Syria’s chemical weapons without being drawn into a war was a “loser.”
A “loser” because McCain thinks that “it gave Russia a position in the Middle East, which they haven’t had since 1970.” McCain continued, “We are now depending on the goodwill of the Russian people if Bashar Assad violates this agreement. And I am of the firm belief — given his record — that is a very, very big gamble.”
And, of course, Senator Graham goes hand-in-hand with McCain. In a joint statement with McCain he says that U.S. allies and enemies alike will see the accord “as an act of provocative weakness on America’s part. We cannot imagine a worse signal to send to Iran as it continues its push for a nuclear weapon,” according to POLITICO
As to picking the carcass before it is a carcass, here are some “headlines” from Memeorandum:
Yahoo! News: The Ugly, Disorganized Obama Victory on Syria
John Hinderaker / Power Line: U.S., Russia Agree to Do Nothing About Syria
Neil Irwin / Wonkblog: Was Obama’s Syria strategy brilliant or lucky?
Tom Maguire / JustOneMinute: Accomodating Our Adversaries, Undercutting Our Allies
Steve M. / No More Mister Nice Blog: OBAMA AND KERRY CAN’T SWIM
Finally, here are two interesting ones: Richard Fernandez at the Belmont Club: A Gift Horse in the Mouth and Neil Irwin at Wonkblog: Was Obama’s Syria strategy brilliant or lucky?
Enjoy!
Image: www.shutterstock.com
