WarSclerotic

Syria: Willing to show sites with chemical arsenals to Russia, UN – Israel News, Ynetnews.*

Damascus senior diplomat says Syria is willing to show chemical weapons sites to UN, Russian representatives, intends to cooperate with Russian initiative, ultimately disarm from chemical weapons

Roi Kais

Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said on Tuesday that “we are ready to show sites with chemical arsenals to Russia’s representatives, as well as representatives of other states and the UN.” Meanwhile, even before US President Barack Obama’s speech Tuesday night, the UN Security Council will convene to discuss the Syrian crisis.

Speaking to Lebanese Hezbollah-affiliated Al-Mayadeen channel, the Syrian foreign minister announced that his country intends on joining the international treaty for the nonproliferation of chemical weapons. “We are willing to respect our commitments in accordance with this covenant,” he said.

In the interview, the senior Syrian diplomat explained that “we committed to the Russian initiative in order to end our holding of chemical weapons.” Al-Moallem added: “we intend on fully cooperating on the matter of execution of the Russian initiative.”

Syrian Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi also expressed the support of the Syrian government in the Russian initiative for international control of the regime’s chemical arsenal. “We support this (initiative) because the aim is to prevent Syrian bloodshed and prevent war, of which the consequences could spread far beyond the region,” said al-Halqi.

US strike on hold. Putin, Assad (Photos: Reuters, AFP)

 Syria’s Ambassador to Lebanon Ali Abdul Karim said in regards to the Russian initiative on Tuesday that “we looked for a solution to the embarrassment the US administration put itself into.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is doing everything to prevent a US strike in Syria, addressed his country’s proposal to inspect and monitor the Assad regime’s chemical weapons on Tuesday. In a statement he made to Arabic-language channel Russia Al-Youm, Putin said that “we hope Syria will not suffice with heaving the chemical weapons under international supervision, but also agrees to destroy it.”

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State John Kerry clarified on Tuesday that even though the US bears hope in the Russian initiative to transfer Syrian chemical arms for international control, the Obama administration will continue at this time to try and persuade the US Congress to allow the use of force against President Bashar Assad‘s regime.

In a hearing with the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives, Kerry said that the US still awaits a concrete and verifiable Russian plan to remove chemical weapons from Syria, but will not wait for long and will not accept any delaying tactics. He added that “we all hope” that the transfer of Assad’s chemical weapons will be the solution to the crisis.

Syrian deal: World interest map – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Obama evaded attack, made Russia fold; Putin killed three birds with one stone; Assad is left standing; Europeans can quietly recuperate from crisis. Meaning of upcoming Syria deal for Israel, Iran

It’s unclear yet whether the Russian initiative to disarm Syria is serious, or whether it is a ploy meant to stall an upcoming strike in Syria. It’s time to check the meaning of the deal for each of the players in the Syria arena.

United States

Serious or not, the Russian initiative is an achievement to the Obama administration. It’s clear that his determination to receive legitimacy for a punitive measure against Syria is what pushed the Russians and their Syrian clients to the corner, making them seek a diplomatic solution that would please Americans.

If the Russian initiative comes through, it will stop Assad from using chemical weapons in the future, and make an American strike, which the public, Congress and Obama himself don’t want, useless. Another achievement would be a clear signal to Iran. Obama walked on the edge, Putin had to blink, and the Middle East countries saw that the threat works.

Russia

Putin is benefiting no less than the US. He’s positioning Russia as a worthwhile empire through the crisis so far. He mainly garners himself international prestige as not only the responsible adult, but also the creative one, who killed three birds with one stone: Prevent future use of chemical weapons by Syria, thus placing himself as part of Western society; stall or prevent an American strike in Syria; and remain loyal to his client, Assad, which gives him extra points in the Middle East.

Syria

If the Russian initiative comes through, Assad has kept himself from huge trouble. An American strike would have surely weakened his army and abilities, possibly swaying the results to the rebel’s favor. In an interview to CBS he seemed utterly panicked.

The compromise on his part isn’t huge, either: If he disarms of chemical weapons, he still has all his other capabilities, and the legitimacy to keep fighting rebels using Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Lately he seems to be winning the war, so he has every reason to be happy if Americans don’t strike. A bonus from Russia for accepting the deal could mean new weapons for the Assad regime as well.

Israel

They should be pleased in Jerusalem – it’s been proven that a reliable American option holds deterrence. The Iranian angle is also clear, as is the direction of any future moves of the US and Israel against Tehran.

In order to use chemical weapons on his own citizens or against Israel, Assad doesn’t need all 1,000 tons of chemical warfare he has. He could do with 1% of that amount. Another danger that is of special interest to Israel: If the negotiation draws on, Syria can transfer and conceal at least part of its chemical arsenal and give it to Hezbollah in Lebanon. This is the worst case scenario as far as Israel is concerned, as bad as chemical weapons falling into the hands of Jihadists in Syria.

Even though the odds of a Syrian strike on Israel in the event of an American military intervention are low, it’s clear that if the Russian initiative comes through, Israel can be calm. Being on alert is also energy- and time-consuming.

Iran

Iran is learning that Americans can be persistent, and that it’s very wise to heed Russian advice. In Moscow they are also against a nuclear Iran, and an American-Russian advance will be much more welcome in Tehran than it would have been so far.

The American show of strength in the Mediterranean and the Gulf was a real demonstration to the Iranians as to what could happen to them if they push the US past a certain threshold. President Rohani’s response Tuesday morning is already testimony to panic. On the other hand, Iran gains as its loyal ally, Assad, stays in power.

European countries

The Europeans didn’t want war, and it didn’t happen – for financial reasons as well. Most of the continent is starting to recuperate from the crisis, and if there is no American strike in Syria, oil prices may not rise, or even fall. This is clean profit as far as Britain, France, Italy, Greece and even Germany are concerned.

Jordan, Turkey and the Gulf countries

Syria’s neighbors gained significantly since they were truly afraid of a desperate response from Assad in the case of an attack, and of an influx of Syrian refugees.

The Mideast countries, including the pro-Western Gulf countries, are benefitted by the fact American deterrence works. The main strategic importance to them is the Iranian effect. All of this hangs on the success of the Russian initiative to disarm Assad.

Liberman: Israel must deal with Iranian threat on its own | The Times of Israel.

( DAMN RIGHT ! Any questions?   –  JW )

Ex-foreign minister says Jewish state has ‘no expectations or demands from the world,’ reiterates policy of non-involvement in Syrian civil war

Head of the Yisrael Beytenu party Avigdor Liberman July 30, 2013. (photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

Israel must deal with the Iranian threat on its own, Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Avigdor Liberman warned on Tuesday.

“We rely only on ourselves. At end of the day, from 1948 onward, no outsiders protected Israel. We dealt with all threats alone. We have no expectations or demands from the world,” Liberman told Channel 2.

Liberman’s statements come as the world grapples with the Syrian crisis, with the US efforting a strike in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime on August 21 while Russia remains vehemently opposed, coming up with a deal, accepted by Syria, to have Assad’s WMD program internationally monitored.

Israel has watched closely as the US has dithered on a response in Syria, concerned that should a nuclear confrontation with Iran come to a head, the world can expect a similar American reaction.

The former foreign minister and head of the Yisrael Beytenu party also reiterated earlier statements that Israel must stay out of the Syrian civil war, which he described as the “most cruel of the 21st century.”

Assad and his circle will become legitimate targets if the Syrian regime crosses Israel’s red lines, Liberman warned on Tuesday.

“If Assad tries to drag us in [to the civil war], by attacking us, or by passing chemical weapons to Hezbollah, Israel will have to respond. The only thing that will deter [him] is the threat of losing his rule. Assad and his close circle will become legitimate targets if they fire at Israel,” Liberman said.

Earlier Tuesday, Liberman said that details of a deal to put Syria’s chemical weapons under international control are highly murky, warning that the plan could potentially serve the interests of the Assad regime.

“Assad is winning time and lots of it,” as a result of the Russian plan, he said.

Comparing the situation to that of Iran’s nuclear program, he noted that the Syrian leader could use the initiative to “buy time” and stall any real international involvement, military or other.

U.S., Britain and France to table UN resolution on Syrian chemical arms – Middle East Israel News Broadcast | Haaretz.

The Syrian government accepted the Kremlin’s proposal to put its chemical weapons under international control to avoid a possible U.S. military strike.

President Barack Obama walks along the West Wing Colonnade towards the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, September 10, 2013. Photo by AP

Britain, France and the United States will table a resolution on Syrian chemical weapons in the United Nations Security Council later on Tuesday, said British Prime Minister David Cameron, reacting to a Russian proposal for Syria to surrender such arms.

Cameron, who said he had just spoken to U.S. President Barack Obama about the issue, told lawmakers: “If this is a serious proposal then we should act accordingly and I think a UN Security Council resolution is a good idea.”

Earlier Tuesday, a White House official said that the Obama administration will begin discussions with the UN Security Council on Tuesday on Russia’s proposal to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international control, a White House official said Tuesday.

Obama spoke by phone earlier with French President Francois Holland and British Prime Minister David Cameron about the Russian proposal.

“They agreed to work closely together, and in consultation with Russia and China, to explore seriously the viability of the Russian proposal to put all Syrian chemical weapons and related materials fully under international control in order to ensure their verifiable and enforceable destruction,” the White House offical said.

“These efforts will begin today at the United Nations, and will include a discussion on elements of a potential UN Security Council Resolution,” the official said in a statement.

In an address Tuesday evening, Obama will tell the American people and Congress on that the U.S. must not let up pressure on Syria even as Washington explores a diplomatic alternative to military strikes.

While Obama plans to claim credit for a potential diplomatic breakthrough on Syria’s chemical weapons, he still faces potential political damage from his failure so far to sell the public and Congress on the need for military intervention.

Diplomacy took center stage on Capitol Hill as supporters and opponents of a military strike in Syria urged a pause in the process so the administration can explore Russia’s proposal to put Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal under international control.

The U.S. Senate put the brakes on a planned vote on authorization of military force in Syria as lawmakers assess the new diplomatic push and the public response to Obama’s speech on Tuesday night.

“The Senate should give these international discussions time to play out, but not too much time,” Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said on Tuesday.

Obama will visit Senate Democrats and Republicans in separate meetings at the Capitol on Tuesday before making his nationally televised address from the White House. Spokesman Jay Carney said the president will keep pushing Congress to approve military force.

Syria’s recent acceptance of a Russian proposal to give up its chemical weapons came about because of the U.S. threat of military strikes, Carney told MSNBC.

“We see this as potentially a positive development and we see this as a clear result of the pressure that has been put on Syria,” Carney said when asked for the White House reaction to new reports that Syria will cede control of its stockpile.

Obama has said Syrian President Bashar Assad needs to be held accountable for an August 21 poison gas attack that killed more than a thousand civilians, including hundreds of children, and asked Congress to authorize limited military strikes.

But the plan has been deeply unpopular with Americans, polls show, and faces stiff resistance in a Congress where many lawmakers had not made up their minds.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said he would oppose a resolution on military force in Syria because “a vital national security risk is clearly not in play.”

‘Strict timeline needed’

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, a Republican who announced last week he would support a strike, said the American people still did not support military action in Syria and Obama needed to make a stronger case.

Influential Republican Senator John McCain, a strong supporter of military action in Syria, said he was working to modify the congressional resolution authorizing U.S. military force to include a “strict” timeline for Damascus to turn over chemical weapons.

McCain said he was “extremely skeptical” about such a diplomatic solution but it would be a mistake not to pursue it.

“Some of us are already working on a modification to a congressional resolution that would require strict timelines and strict guidelines that would have to be met as part of the authorization for the president,” he said on CBS’ “This Morning” program.

McCain offered few specifics about his measure, but other lawmakers have also been floating proposals that would allow a certain window of time before allowing Obama to take further action, which could include air strikes.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told the House Armed Services Committee it was “the credible threat of military force” that prompted Assad to even acknowledge his chemical weapons stockpile.

In a televised address to the nation at 9 p.m. ET (0100 GMT Wednesday), Obama will explain to Americans why he wants to have permission to strike Syria, Carney said.

“He will also, as he did last night in response to questions from network anchors, note that we have some potential progress on the diplomatic front because of the credible threat of U.S. military force,” he said.

Putin’s desperate attempt to save Assad – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Analysis: Proposal to disarm Syria of WMDs promising, but may also present great danger if not implemented immediately

Russia’s compromise offer to disarm the Assad regime of its chemical weapons presents a great opportunity, but it is also very dangerous. Therefore, the initial response of the White House, which sees the proposal as a Russian trick aimed at buying time and further delaying an American strike, is justified. A general proposal that does not include specific details on the supervision of the chemical weapons’ disarmament does not warrant a serious response.

Only when Russian President Putin and Syria’s Assad present a specific agreement will the West be able to determine if it’s a ploy or if there is a basis for an agreement that will satisfy all sides involved. By the way, it was US Secretary of State John Kerry who first proposed on Monday to dismantle and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons arsenals. But Kerry gave Assad a week to do it.

Seemingly, forcing Syria to surrender its control of the chemical arsenals to the international community is the optimal solution to the crisis. It will prevent Assad from using weapons of mass destruction in the future and will deter other players in the Middle East, such as Iran, who will realize that the international community will not settle for anything less than the dissolution of unconventional military capabilities.

But in order for this to happen, a number of conditions must be met:

1. Syria will put its chemical weapons arsenals under the supervision of inspectors appointed by the UN Security Council. Russian inspectors may be included in this group, but Europe and Asia must also be represented.

2. Syria will agree to surprise inspections and searches at the chemical weapons storage sites.

3. Syria will place under international control its chemical weapons manufacturing facilities, as well as its chemical precursors and stockpiles of chemical warheads.

4. Syria will agree to the destruction of its chemical weapons and chemical manufacturing facilities.

This strategy was employed by the UN inspectors who were sent to disarm Iraq of WMDs following the First Gulf War. However, we must keep in mind that Saddam Hussein’s people tried to dupe the UN inspectors on several occasions and they needed to be reminded with Tomahawk missiles (in 1993 and 1995) that the Americans will never tolerate such ploys.

Reaching such an agreement within a week or two will be considered a great achievement for President Obama. The determined threat of an American strike on Syria not only deterred the dictator from Damascus, it also forced Putin to find a solution that will prevent the Syrian regime from using WMDs in the future. This will send a clear signal to Iran regarding the resolution of the nuclear crisis.

Serious proposal? Putin (L) and Assad (Photos: AP, Reuters)

If, however, Syria will be given time to hide a certain amount of its chemical weapons and the Russians will not agree to pop inspections by international monitors based on intelligence information obtained from Middle Eastern or European countries (or from the US itself), and if Syria will not be forced to destroy its chemical weapons, then the agreement will not be worth anything and will only allow the butcher from Damascus to continue with his deceptions.

It should also be noted that in order to attack Israel, Syria would not need a large amount of chemical weapons. Assad would not need all of the 1,000 tons of chemical agents currently in his possession, but only a fraction of this amount. In addition, should the negotiations on an agreement drag on, Syria will be able to transfer at least part of its chemical weapons arsenal to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Such a development would of course be of great concern to Israel. As far as the Jewish state is concerned, this is the worst possible scenario – just as bad as having the WMDs fall into the hands of the jihadists who are taking part in the Syrian civil war.

The conclusion is that the negotiations must begin immediately and end within a few days with the Security Council approving a detailed proposal that will see Syria’s chemical weapons placed under international control and then destroyed, preferably in a neutral country. Should the Russians try to drag out the talks, it would mean that their intentions are not serious. In this case, the US should view the proposal as nothing more than a ploy meant to buy Assad more time.

Putin’s proposal may be serious and aimed at avoiding his humiliation by an American strike in Syria despite his warnings and veto at the Security Council.

This turn of events presents a great opportunity for President Obama, but there is also the risk that the US will be deceived. The entire world, including Israel and Iran, is waiting anxiously to see how things play out.

Obama backs UN discussion of Syria arms proposal | The Times of Israel.

President says deal on int’l supervision of Assad’s WMD could ‘absolutely’ bring crisis back from the brink; White House hails idea as ‘clear result’ of its pressure

US President Barack Obama, Sept. 6, 2013 (photo credit:AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

A White House official said President Barack Obama has agreed to discussions at the United Nations Security Council on a proposal from Russia to secure Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles.

The official says Obama discussed the proposal Tuesday with French President Francois Hollande and British Prime Minister David Cameron. France’s foreign minister says France will float a resolution in the UN Security Council aimed at forcing Syria to make public its chemical weapons program, place it under international control and dismantle it.

Obama has said the proposal marks a potential breakthrough that could halt plans for a US military strike, though, he said, the details remain unclear.

Also Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the US sees the Russian proposal to put Syria’s chemical weapons under international control – and Syria’s acceptance of the proposal — as “potentially a positive development,” but warned that the Obama administration would press ahead for authorization of a strike.

“We see this as potentially a positive development,” said Carney on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Tuesday. “And we see it as a clear result of the pressure that has been put on Syria by the fact that the president has been moving forward and taking his proposal that we engage in limited strikes against Syria in response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons against a civilian population.”

However, he added that the US would go ahead with its efforts to get a strike approved and that Obama would still make the case to Congress.

“The president does believe that we need to take action in reaction to Syria’s blatant violation of this longstanding international prohibition against the use of chemical weapons,” said Carney.

Earlier Tuesday, Syria said it had accepted Russia’s proposal to place its chemical weapons under international control for subsequent dismantling.

The moves are part of flurry of diplomatic activity aimed at averting Western military action. Speaking in Moscow, Syrian Foreign MInister Walid al-Moallem said his government quickly agreed to the plan to “thwart US aggression” — an allusion to possible US-led strikes in retaliation for a deadly August 21 chemical weapons attack near Damascus that Western powers blame on the Syrian regime. Syrian President Bashar Assad has denied the claim.

His statement sounded more definitive than his remarks Monday, when he said that Damascus welcomed Russia’s initiative.

Western officials have expressed caution about possible stalling tactics or efforts to wriggle out of international pressure by Assad’s regime in Syria, where more than 100,000 people have died in more than two years of civil war.

Meanwhile, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Tuesday that Russia was now working with Syria to prepare a detailed plan of action, which would be presented shortly.

Lavrov said that Russia would then be ready to finalize the plan together with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Obama said Monday the Russian proposal could be “potentially a significant breakthrough,” but he remained skeptical that Syria would follow through.

If Assad gave up control of his chemical weapons, Obama said, the crisis would be “absolutely” back from the brink. In a series of US TV interviews, he made plain that his goal was not to intervene militarily in Syria, but rather to put a stop to Assad’s use of chemical weapons.

Obama said the idea for international supervision actually had been broached in his 20-minute meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week on the sidelines of an economic summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. Obama said he directed US Secretary of State John Kerry to have more conversations with the Russians and “run this to ground.”

Also Tuesday, the Arab League chief expressed support for Russia’s proposal.

Nabil Elaraby told reporters that the Arab League has been always in favor of a “political resolution.” He added, “Thank God.”

The Arab League has blamed the Syrian government for the alleged chemical weapons attack near Damascus that killed hundreds of people and called for the perpetrators to be brought to justice. However, it didn’t support military action without UN consent.

Syria says it ‘welcomes’ Russia proposal on chemical weapons – The Washington Post.

By Anne Gearan, Karen DeYoung and Will Englund, Published: September 9

Russia and Syria embraced Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s suggestion Monday that the Syrian government could avert a U.S. attack by placing its chemical weapons under international control, upending the Obama administration’s efforts to sharpen its case for military action.

U.S. officials said Kerry’s comment, made in response to a question at a news conference in London, was not intended to be a diplomatic opening. But Kerry’s Russian and Syrian counterparts quickly followed up, and the idea drew immediate interest internationally and from top Democrats in Washington.

By the end of the day, President Obama conceded that the idea of monitoring and ultimately destroying Syria’s arsenal “could potentially be a significant breakthrough.” The Senate postponed a vote scheduled for Wednesday on whether to back a proposed punitive strike.

“I think you have to take it with a grain of salt, initially,” Obama said in an interview with NBC that was among several he gave Monday in pursuit of public backing for a military strike in response to an alleged Aug. 21 gas attack on Syrian civilians.

“We are going to run this to ground,” Obama said. “We’re going to make sure that we see how serious these proposals are.”

The president plans to address the nation Tuesday evening in a speech originally planned to be the capstone of a newly focused moral and political case to rally a skeptical public and reluctant lawmakers.

The timing of the new proposal was awkward and its apparent genesis perhaps more so.

It began when Kerry was asked early Monday whether Assad could avoid a U.S. attack.

“Sure. He could turn over every bit of his weapons to the international community within the next week, without delay,” Kerry responded with a shrug. “But he isn’t about to.”

As Kerry flew back to Washington to help lobby lawmakers, he received a midair call from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who said he had heard the secretary’s remarks and was about to make a public announcement.

The statement in Moscow came before Kerry landed.

“We are calling on the Syrian authorities [to] not only agree on putting chemical weapons storages under international control but also for its further destruction and then joining the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,” Lavrov said, adding, “We have passed our offer to [Syrian Foreign Minister] Walid al-Moualem and hope to receive a fast and positive answer.”

Moualem, who was in Moscow meeting with Lavrov, followed with a statement that his government “welcomes Russia’s initiative, based on the Syrian government’s care about the lives of our people and security of our country.”

Although Syrian President Bashar al-Assad denies having a stockpile of the widely banned weapons, the idea of international control also quickly gained traction among diplomats and at least some senior Democrats whose support Obama seeks for a show of force.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was the first senior lawmaker to voice support for the Russian proposal.

“I think if the U.N. would accept the responsibility of maintaining these 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,” Feinstein said.

The Russian announcement was met with approval by international backers and critics of a U.S. strike. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who has said a U.S. attack on Syria would be illegal without U.N. approval, signaled support, as did British Prime Minister David Cameron.

French Foreign Minister Laurant Fabius, whose government had said it would join an American attack and who two days ago stood at Kerry’s side in Paris to pledge an all-out effort to build public support, said it was worth testing. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has been wary of a strike, welcomed the idea.

Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) said the proposal came only because Assad feels the threat of military force and that Congress should continue considering Obama’s request for legislative backing. But the two said the proposal should be given a chance — and a test of its sincerity — by being committed to writing in a U.N. Security Council resolution.

“We should not trust, and we must verify,” the pair said in a joint statement.

A senior State Department official said Kerry warned Lavrov that the United States was “not going to play games.”

Current and former Obama administration officials scrambled Monday to say the proposal should not derail plans for a punitive strike. They suggested it was a delaying tactic after more than two years of diplomatic efforts with Syria and its ally Russia, albeit one spurred by the prospect that a U.S. military attack is imminent.

“It’s very important to note that it’s clear that this proposal comes in the context of the threat of U.S. action and the pressure that the president is exerting,” deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken said at the White House. “So it’s even more important that we don’t take the pressure off and that Congress give the president the authority he’s requested.”

Obama said in an interview on “PBS NewsHour” Monday that he had discussed the possibility of international monitoring with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin at last week’s Group of 20 summit in St. Petersburg.

The senior State Department official said Lavrov had previously discussed the idea in conversations with Kerry, including a telephone call as recently as Thursday, but never in the context of the proposed U.S. military action.

The official, who requested anonymity to detail the internal discussions, said Lavrov told Kerry about the new proposal in a telephone call while Kerry flew home Monday.

The Russian announcement came as several top Obama administration officials were fanning out across Washington in a coordinated lobbying effort.

Inside an hour on Monday afternoon, Blinken, deputy national security adviser Benjamin Rhodes, national security adviser Susan E. Rice, White House press secretary Jay Carney and State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf all made the same argument.

“Failing to respond to this brazen attack could indicate that the United States is not prepared to use the full range of tools necessary to keep our nation secure,” Rice said in an address at the New America Foundation. “Any president, Republican or Democrat, must have recourse to all elements of American power to design and implement our national security policy, whether diplomatic, economic or military.”

In Washington, former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton said after a meeting with Obama that if Syria immediately surrenders its chemical weapons, “that would be an important step, but this cannot be another excuse for delay or obstruction.”

Last month’s reported chemical attack, which the United States says killed more than 1,400 civilians, brought worldwide condemnation, as well as vows of military action by Obama, who had previously described the use of such banned weapons as a “red line.”

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.

DeYoung reported from London. Englund reported from Moscow

© The Washington Post Company

Israel Hayom | Pulling one over on the West.

Dan Margalit

Israel unconvinced by Russian plan for Syrian chemical arms | The Times of Israel.

‘Assad is winning time and lots of it,’ Liberman says; Peres calls Damascus ‘not trustworthy’

By Stuart Winer September 10, 2013, 12:31 pm

Chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Avigdor Liberman, in Jerusalem. Sunday, September 1, 2013. (photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

Details of a deal to put Syria’s chemical weapons under international control are highly murky, Knesset foreign affairs chief Avigdor Liberman said Tuesday, warning that the plan could potentially serve the interests of the Assad regime.

Speaking to Israel Radio, the head of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee said Syrian President Bashar “Assad is winning time and lots of it,” as a result of the Russian plan. Comparing the situation to that of Iran’s nuclear program, he noted that the Syrian leader could use the initiative to “buy time” and stall any real international involvement, military or other.

Liberman, a former foreign minister, warned that Israel was determined not to be dragged into the conflict but would not shy away from retaliating if the country was attacked, no matter who the aggressor may be.

“Assad needs to understand that he and his associates will become legitimate targets if they try to drag Israel into the dispute,” he said.

On Monday, President Shimon Peres also cautioned against putting too much stock in the deal, saying “the Syrians are not trustworthy,” and that their acceptance of the Russian proposal meant very little.

Israel has mostly stayed quiet on the Syria crisis, though unnamed officials have indicated Jerusalem supports the US taking military action against Damascus.

Liberman also addressed ongoing concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, asserting that Israel must first and foremost rely on itself and be ready to deal with any threat. However, he expressed hope that the international community would be more determined in its efforts to halt Iran’s drive toward nuclear weapons.

Liberman was pessimistic about the outcome of current peace negotiations with Palestinians because, he said, conditions are not right to reach a comprehensive agreement.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Iran’s Rohani: We won’t give up ‘one iota’ of nuclear rights – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Islamic Republic president says ‘West must understand it will not obtain any result by threats.’ Report: Obama told Rohani US willing to ease economic sanctions

Roi Kais, AFP

Iran will not give up “one iota” of its nuclear rights, Iranian President Hassan Rohani said in a speech to clerics, Mehr news agency reported on Tuesday.

Rohani’s comments come ahead of a meeting in New York later in the month between his foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton on restarting negotiations over the Islamic republic’s nuclear program.

“Our government will not give up one iota of its absolute rights on the nuclear issue,” Rohani said, repeating a mantra frequently used by his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

He also said that following the meeting between Zarif and Ashton, nuclear negotiations “will continue in another place with the 5+1 group,” which is made up of the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany, but gave no further details.

Himself a former nuclear negotiator, Rohani last week handed responsibility for future talks to the foreign ministry under Zarif, a US-educated moderate.

On Friday, after a phone call with Ashton, the P5+1 lead negotiator, Zarif said that Tehran wanted to “remove any ambiguity” about its nuclear work.

Iranian nuclear plant in Bushehr (Photo: Reuters)

Rohani has also appointed a new Iranian envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Reza Najafi, and former foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi as head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization.

Salehi indicated last week that Iran could grant the IAEA greater inspection rights.

Rohani said soon after his election as president in June that he wanted to hold “serious” talks “without wasting time” on Iran’s nuclear file, while maintaining Iran’s “undeniable rights” to its nuclear program.

Meanwhile, the London-based Arabic-language al-Hayat newspaper reported that US President Barack Obama relayed an appeasing message to Iranian President Rohani recently in a bid to turn over a new leaf in the relations between the two countries.

According to the report, in his message to Rohani through Oman ruler Qaboos bin Said al-Said, Obama said the US was willing to ease the economic sanctions on Iran and advance negotiations on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

Western countries believe Tehran’s nuclear program is aimed at developing nuclear weapons, an allegation Iran has repeatedly denied.

Ahmadinejad’s refusal to make any concessions on the nuclear issue saw the Islamic republic slapped with rounds of international sanctions, which in particular targeted its oil exports and banking transactions.

Oil revenues have halved due to the sanctions, causing the value of the rial to plunge and inflation to soar to above 40%.

But Rohani said that such measures would not make Iran abandon its program.

“The West must understand that it will not obtain any result by threats and pressure,” he said in his speech to the clerics.

Talks between the 5+1 and Iran in Almaty in April ended in an impasse over Tehran’s insistence that its nuclear “rights” be recognized.