Josh Marshall advises the administration to “grab on to” the Russian proposal:
I’m not saying I think it will be easy or that the Russians are sincere. But getting all the regimes chemical weapons arsenal under international control would be no small achievement. Simply focusing on it would give the US something to apply leverage against (something it sorely lacks at the moment) and put the Russians in an awkward spot. The introduction of foreign forces of whatever sort is always something a regime trying to remain in power seeks to avoid. It would be a development that might well be used to leverage Assad out of power.
The key is that this potentially allows the US to reshuffle the deck and come at the problem on terrain which is inherently more favorable, given the Russian opening. Take the whole thing back to the Security Council. Have the Russians veto what they just proposed.
Jed Lewison adds that, “if Russia were actually able to get Syria to relinquish its chemical weapons, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where the administration would proceed with an attack”:
Of course, that’s the best case scenario. The flip-side is this: What happens if Russia and Syria say they are in the process of handing over weapons, but don’t take action quickly enough to satisfy the administration? Would the U.S. attack Syria at the same time that Russia was claiming to disarm it of chemical weapons?
Fisher is unsure whether Russia’s plan is legit:
[I]f Russia and Syria do go through with this plan, it would signal that both believe Assad can still win without chemical weapons. They would probably be correct. And it would significantly reduce the odds of any U.S. action against Assad, although it’s debatable whether that would be a good or bad thing for Syria. But, as Washington Institute for Near East Policy Executive Director Robert Satloff pointed out to me on Twitter, the “exit of chemical weapons would end any possibility of U.S./Western military action to balance the battlefield.” That’s a sign that Lavrov’s plan might be for real.
Drum weighs in:
[W]hat if the Russians aren’t playing games, but are seizing an unanticipated opportunity? It’s possible that for all their bluster, the Russians would actually like a way out of this that saves some face. It’s also possible, if you believe the latest reports in Bild am Sonntag, that Assad never wanted last month’s chemical attack to go forward in the first place. His generals did it without his go-ahead. So maybe he’d just as soon be rid of the stuff.
I doubt it. But it’s at least an intriguing thought.
Mataconis suggests that it “may not even matter if this Russian proposal is all that serious”:
The President’s request for authorization to use force is already in perilous trouble in Congress and even members of his own party are having a hard time getting in line behind him. If there’s a proposal sitting out there that could potentially avoid military action, which the Syrians have seemingly expressed a willingness to consider seriously, then it strikes me that it’s going to become all the more difficult to convince reluctant Members of Congress to get behind the President. The President has already said on more than one occasion that there is no imminent threat to the United States from Syria’s chemical weapons and that the attack that he has in mind can essentially be delayed indefinitely. He conceded that much by submitting the matter to Congress while at the same time insisting it was not an urgent enough matter that they needed to reconvene early. Indeed, it’s already been nearly three weeks since the attack which is supposedly the basis for the attack. If it was okay to wait this long, the reluctant legislator is likely to ask, then why not wait a little longer to see if this proposal pans out?
Dreher asks why the administration wouldn’t support this proposal:
Why would the Obama administration walk back Kerry’s statement, especially if the Russians are on board with it? I thought that the US goal here was simply to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons capabilities. If we can get a verifiable international operation to peacefully disarm Syria’s chemical stockpiles, why not?
Unless the Obama administration is using “chemical weapons” as cover for regime change.
The Dish 