WarSclerotic

The agreement reached in Geneva on Saturday between the United States and Russia to remove all chemical weapons from Syria is an amazing development.

According to the agreement, Syria will submit a full report of its chemical arsenal within a week, allow international monitoring by November and full removal by June 2014.

There is no doubt that this agreement is a huge diplomatic success for Russia and a personal achievement of President Vladimir Putin.

Putin dared to oppose the US every step of the way, scuttled its strategy, and took the lead on the Syrian crisis to the disappointment of US allies in the region.

This was aggravated by the inaction and indifference of Europe.

If this agreement is fully implemented it will be the best possible outcome, and will serve as a face saver for President Barack Obama after the recent indecisiveness and inconsistencies coming out of Washington regarding Syria. However, the only measure of success is the full and timely compliance of Syria without any evasions, procrastinations, or interference by President Bashar Assad.

Full transparency must be maintained throughout the process, and the UN task force handling the monitoring and subsequent removal must be capable, serious and undeterred.

To ensure success, a credible military threat against Assad should be constantly present. The US Congress should endorse this policy.

The Russian success is even more salient, with Putin maneuvering Obama into a supporting role – the first time the US has relinquished leadership since World War II. This US-Russia cooperation may be a model for neutralizing the Iranian threat, but this will take much more resolve, determination, and leadership by the United States.

The writer, the founder of The Truth About Israel, is a former deputy foreign minister and ambassador to the US.

DUBAI – A deal between Russia and the United States to remove Syria’s chemical arsenal was a sign of US “rationality”, Iran’s speaker of parliament was quoted as saying by Iranian media on Sunday.

US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov demanded on Saturday that Syrian President Bashar Assad account for his secret stockpile within a week and let international inspectors eliminate all the weapons by the middle of next year.

Iran strongly backs Assad against the rebels seeking to oust him, and has said the rebels were responsible for a chemical attack last month outside of Damascus. The United States and its allies say Assad’s government is responsible.

Speaker Ali Larijani said in a news conference late on Saturday that any US strike in retaliation for the gas attack would result in a larger conflict in the region and would be against international law, and that US policymakers had realized this.

“We are hopeful that American politicians have some rationality so they avoid extremist behavior, and the events of the last few days and the decisions that have been taken indicate this rationality,” Larijani said, according to the ISNA news agency on Sunday.

GENEVA – The deal between the United States and Russia on Syrian chemical weapons was due in no small part to the labors of foreign policy veterans with contrasting styles: Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

While their bosses, presidents Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin, get on poorly and can stoop to point scoring, the two ministers have what diplomats like to call “a good working relationship.”

“We’ve had our differences here and there on certain issues,” Kerry said of recent tensions that have brought US-Russian ties to some of their lowest points since the Cold War.

Throughout it all,” Sergei Lavrov and I have never stopped talking,” Kerry told a news conference on Saturday when he announced the Syria agreement after nearly three days of round-the-clock negotiations.

The pair have helped keep the US-Russia relationship from hitting even worse lows as Moscow and Washington argued not only over Syria but also about American fugitive spy contractor Edward Snowden and human rights in Russia, US officials say.

Just 10 days ago, Putin publicly called Kerry a liar for suggesting that Syrian rebels were not dominated by radical Islamists.

To smooth things over, Lavrov apologized – or at least explained – to Kerry in a phone call, a senior State Department official said. The Kremlin got a bad translation of the secretary of state’s remarks, Lavrov told Kerry.

The Geneva accord to take away Syria’s chemical arsenal leaves major questions unanswered, including how to carry it out in the midst of civil war and at what point the United States might make good on a threat to attack Syria if it thinks President Bashar Assad is reneging.

But it was a rare common effort between Moscow and Washington and the product of the most significant direct US-Russia diplomacy on a global crisis in years.

The Syria agreement “shows how important it is for us to go beyond those things … some people try to make them as obstacles in our relations, some suspicions or concerns that are created artificially,” Lavrov said on Saturday when asked whether the United States and Russia might again try to “reset” their relations.

After the Russian wound up his long-winded answer, Kerry, a former US senator, teased him: “I was just thinking Sergei, you could be a senator.”

UNLIKELY COUPLE

Lavrov and Kerry might be diplomatic partners and able to rib one another in public, but they are cut from different cloth.

The Russian foreign minister has an often-dour public visage and can be prickly and sharp-tongued. Those who have negotiated with him say he has a razor-sharp mind, honed over four decades of diplomatic service since his 1972 graduation from the then-Soviet Foreign Ministry’s international relations institute.

By contrast, Kerry is a former politician and presidential candidate with a deep belief in personal diplomacy and his own powers of persuasion.

Lavrov does not wander off message; Kerry’s former independence as a senator shows in the occasional remark that goes beyond the White House script.

While their relationship helped the Syria talks, ultimately foreign policy is dominated in Moscow by Putin, and to a lesser extent by the White House in Washington.

The Syria chemical weapons plan, first put forward last week by Lavrov, would not have been announced without Putin’s approval.

“The Russian foreign minister does not have an independent political identity in the way that senators-turned-secretaries of state like (Hillary) Clinton or Kerry do,” said Matthew Rojansky of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

“This is a strong system and Putin is very much in control and Lavrov serves that system,” said Rojansky, director of the center’s Kennan Institute.

Lavrov left the Intercontinental Hotel talks venue twice on Friday to field calls from Putin he took at Russia’s mission to UN organizations in Geneva.

MOVING BEYOND THE ‘RESET’

The Intercontinental was where Kerry’s predecessor Clinton gave Lavrov a peace offering in March 2009 in the form of a box with a large red “reset” button.

The reset in US-Russia ties did not last long, foundering over disputes on Iran, Syria and Snowden.

Lavrov, Russia’s top diplomat since 2004, appears to get on better with Kerry than he did with either Clinton or former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Dimitri Simes, president of the Washington-based Center for the National Interest think tank, said he last saw Lavrov in July. “It was quite clear that Lavrov was concerned about the status of the US-Russian relationship, was not happy with the US position on Syria. But my impression was that he felt that he had a good working relationship with Secretary Kerry.”

Kerry and Lavrov have spoken by phone 11 times since the Aug. 21 gas attack outside Damascus that sparked US threats to use force, according to a State Department tally.

Their struggle with the Syria issue began in early May, when Kerry traveled to Moscow, met with Putin and pressed the Russians to become more involved in efforts to end Syria’s civil war, which has killed more than 100,000 people.

“Just work with Lavrov on it,” Putin said near the end of the more than hour-long meeting, according to the State Department official.

The two ministers took a long walk – a favorite Kerry tactic – then huddled with a small group of advisers in a backroom, where they drew up an announcement for a meeting in Geneva aimed at a political transition in Syria. But that conference has yet to be held.

After a midnight news conference to announce the peace conference plan, they had dinner. Lavrov brought out a bottle of wine from the late 1940s, the senior official said.

“They talked about hockey. They both love sports,” the official said. “Lavrov loves soccer. Kerry played soccer.”

Kerry’s personal diplomacy with Lavrov continued in Geneva this week, with a dinner of salad and fish on Thursday night that included only one aide each, and a ride in his limousine on Friday morning en route to the UN’s Geneva headquarters.

Those personal touches helped move the talks toward agreement and avert a US military strike on Syria.

The US-Russia deal to have Syria dismantle their chemical weapons arsenal is ultimately a good thing for Israel, the outspoken Avigdor Liberman told Army Radio talk show “Good Morning Israel” on Sunday morning.

“The arrangement with Syria is good for Israel, but the test will be in its implementation,” Liberman said.

Liberman, who currently serves as the chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, believes the deal can work, but it all depends on Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“The test has been performed, and Assad has a very problematic record in every subject of reliability and good intentions,” said the Likud Beytenu MK. “Only recently he was still denying that Syria held chemical weapons.”

According to Liberman, the judgement of Assad’s earnestness in honoring the deal will begin next week when Assad is expected to hand over an initial map outlining the sites of chemical weapons caches.

Still, Liberman was coy when asked about Israel’s interest in ratifying a treaty which would ban chemical weapons.

“Only when the Middle East truly becomes a new Middle East, will we sign any treaty,” he declared.