The scenario required the depiction of the solution as being a "Russian initiative" to destroy Syria's chemical arsenal, as the last meetings between Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov clearly showed they were a last stop to draft the statement-agreement between Washington and Moscow. Consequently, the road became open before the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the restoration of the Security Council's status, without there being any need for whichever side, especially Damascus, to claim victory before the retreat, confusion, and weakness in the ranks of the American administration. It is simply an accomplishment for international diplomacy, particularly the United States and Russia, which showed that superpowers do not stop at minor issues as stated by the American secretary of state while announcing the agreement on Saturday. In other words, these states cannot push their disputes to the point of confrontation and war. And along with his Russian counterpart, he did not forget to point to the numerous areas of cooperation between the two countries, from the North Korean issue to Iran, going through the questions of Weapons of Mass Destruction, drugs, technological security, the internet, free trade, the economy, and development, among others. Therefore, the initiative was not coincidental and should not have surprised those who awaited the American strike at any moment. In addition, it did not constitute a safety raft for American President Barack Obama, who was and still is facing Congress' refusal to authorize a military intervention against the Syrian regime, regardless of how it is described. The initiative was the result of contacts which started months ago, back when the talk about the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons emerged. At the time, Washington intervened with Moscow, which issued reassurances saying the poisonous arsenal was under surveillance. But when it turned out that this arsenal was being used on the field, no state could remain silent vis-à-vis a weapon whose prohibition was elected about a century ago following WWI. Even Russia and Iran condemned its use, which is why the decision was taken during a 20-minute meeting between the American and Russian presidents on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Petersburg. In the internal Syrian calculations, the Syrians lost before the foreign attack and before everyone's intervention. The regime lost after it was finally forced to recognize the existence of its chemical arsenal. By doing so, it confirmed the accusation and should reveal the production and storing sites of these weapons within a week, in parallel to its rush to join the Chemical Weapons Convention. And in the next nine months, it should start destroying this strategic arsenal on which it relied to instate a balance of terror with nuclear Israel, which can now appease some of its fears! The American military mobilization in the Mediterranean Sea and some neighboring states, in addition to the threats to use force and sanctions, were able to terrorize Damascus, which was previously terrorized by the American invasion of Iraq a decade ago. For its part, the opposition that was preparing to achieve progress on the ground following the foreign military intervention dissipated by the Russian initiative also lost. This is why it is understandable to see the opposition rejecting this initiative, along with the Free Army that does not trust President Bashar al-Assad's regime and Kremlin's administration as expressed by its Chief of Staff General Salim Edriss. But this opposition should not rush, considering that the chemical weapons ought to exit the balance of power on the field, while the American threat to resort to the military option still stands and is limiting the regime's options. In other words, the achievement of balance – a condition presented by the opposition before heading to the Geneva 2 conference – is now being secured, but with international hands. True, the American-Russian agreement and the international commotion which accompanied the action of Washington and its partners have so far been limited to this file, and true, war will go on until further notice using various traditional weapons which have so far claimed the lives of more than 100,000 people. However, the statement of the two ministers and the resolution bill which will be put forward by France before the Security Council, confirm that the door will be opened before a political settlement under the headline of the respect of the Geneva 1 recommendations. The latter include the formation of a transitional government, which Minister Lavrov assured once again will enjoy all the powers, although he stressed the necessity to attend the next conference without any reservations and conditions, and although Secretary of State Kerry assured that in return, President Bashar al-Assad would have to leave at the beginning and not the end of the transitional political process. In international calculations, a lot of what was said about President Obama's reluctance and confusion at the level of foreign policy is true. But this time around, he was able to achieve one of the most prominent goals of the strike without actually having to resort to it. He succeeded when he waved his fist and mobilized his destroyers and aircrafts. Naturally, it is easy for those who were enthusiastic about war to accuse him of being weak as usual. But the facts here are completely different. Ever since the eruption of the Syrian crisis, the master of the White House never expressed his wish to intervene or engage in a new war in the region. His main concern was – and still is – the achievement of his promises to his voters, i.e. secure the return of the American troops sent by his predecessors to participate in two destructive wars. His concern was – and still is – the improvement of the economic situation, while preparing for the congressional elections next year. This was and still is his strategic choice. And if the Russian initiative represented to some a victory for Kremlin's diplomacy, it also served the American president's strategy, as it spared him from confronting Congress and saved him the trouble of heading towards a war which might be destructive. In addition, it achieved the purpose of the strike, i.e. sanction the Syrian regime and undermine its chemical capabilities, in order to prevent it from using these internationally-prohibited weapons. He thus achieved his goal without firing one bullet, knowing he never said that the intervention aimed to topple the regime, while stressing – at the peak of his threats to use power – that the strike was not a solution, but rather the political settlement. More importantly, he proved that Washington's brandishing of the stick could push all the sides to reconsider their calculations. The joint initiative constituted an exit for both Washington and Moscow, and even an accomplishment for the two. True, it established Russia's upper hand in Syria. But what is also true is that Obama's administration made sure since the beginning to take Kremlin's role at the level of this crisis into account. And what it achieved through the statement-agreement was not an easy task, seeing how both Kerry and Lavrov threatened to resort to the Security Council and Chapter VII if Al-Assad's regime violates its commitments and pledges. In other words, this regime is now living under the weight of an international sword, following the brandished sword of the possible American strike, as long as Washington announced that this option was still on the table. And if the agreement is implemented without any maneuvering, stalling or attempts to waste time, it will prove that international cooperation, which was called for by the American president since his arrival to the White House – instead of monopolization – could constitute a basis for the instatement of international stability and peace, and enhance cooperation between the superpowers. It might even point to the possible tackling of the Iranian nuclear file with a new mentality, based on the rallying of international efforts. At this level, Iranian President-elect Hassan Rohani's call upon his Russian counterpart to help solve the Iranian nuclear problem "as soon as possible in the context of international standards" is not to be taken lightly, knowing that he added: "Now is the best time to see new steps on your end." The Syrians lost, and this is the natural result of internationalization and regionalization. And it is normal for the two fighting sides to feel that the deal between the major players did not take their concerns and aspirations into account, as much as it did and will take those of the latter players. Now, they can determine Syria's future, and the American and Russian foreign ministers expressed their wish to see their agreement setting the foundations for the end of bloodshed and acting as a step towards a political solution and negotiations. But this is one step on a long road. However, it is urgent at this stage for those who reached the new agreement to maintain the momentum of this process, knowing that the first test they will face will surround their ability to exercise efficient pressures on the regime and the opposition. In the meantime, what was noticeable during the meetings of the American and Russian ministers was United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon's statement, in which he said that Al-Assad committed war crimes and that he will be held accountable for them. And if the inspectors' report proves the regime's responsibility for the Ghouta massacre, President Al-Assad will face a wave of detractors calling for his transfer to the International Criminal Court, which will constitute yet another sword brandished over his head. What was noticeable before that was Secretary of State John Kerry's announcement of the fact that the three officials responsible for the chemical weapons were the Syrian president, his brother Maher al-Assad, and a general he did not name! So will this position leave the door open before compromises and pressures against the head of the regime in Damascus, in preparation for his departure along with some figures of his regime? The second test facing those who reached the agreement is their ability to overcome the regional complications and clashes linked to the conflict. This is not an easy task and it requires a lot of time, unless the understanding between Washington and Moscow manages to place the Iranian nuclear file along the tracks of a political settlement, which would necessitate a major deal drawing a new general framework for regional order. Will the new dynamic affecting the Syrian crisis push towards this outcome? Or will it transform into a mere temporary truce while war is crushing whatever and whoever is left in Syria?
