The United States and Russia on Saturday announced the framework of a deal on Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles, averting for the time being U.S.-led military action on Syria.

The U.S. and Russia will work toward quick adoption of a U.N. Security Council resolution that reinforces the points of the agreement. Failure from Syria and President Bashar al-Assad to adhere to certain deadlines or comply with certain requirements could lead to consequences under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter — which outlines both the possibility of both sanctions and military force.

However, U.S. officials will not likely seek threat of military action in the Security Council resolution, knowing that Russia would likely move to veto the measure.

Here are the key points, from the State Department's outline of the agreement:

• The U.S. and Russia have agreed to the amount and types of chemical weapons in Syria, and are "committed" to immediate international control over them.
• Syria has a deadline of a week to submit everything about its chemical weapons program. This includes a "comprehensive listing, including names, types, and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions, and location and form of storage, production, and research and development facilities."
• U.N.-led inspectors must be on the ground in Syria by November to begin removal of chemical weapons.
• Destruction of production and mixing/filling equipment by November.
• Complete elimination of all chemical weapons material and equipment in the first half of 2014.

Though the State Department stressed that this deal was only a framework, it still doesn't answer a few important questions. First, there's clear skepticism that Assad will comply with the terms of the deal — and the consequences if he doesn't are still unresolved.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters in Geneva, Switzerland, that President Barack Obama reserves the right to take military action if it is in the national-security interests of the country. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said "there is nothing said about the use of force."

In a statement, Obama called the agreement an "important, concrete step," but he said that the U.S. is still "prepared to act" if diplomacy fails.

"We have a duty to preserve a world free from the fear of chemical weapons for our children. Today marks an important step towards achieving this goal," Obama said.

The deal comes after a whirlwind week in the Syrian crisis — one that started with Obama desperately trying to garner votes from Congress to authorize military strikes and progressed into Kerry — possibly accidentally — finding a diplomatic solution

Kerry made what appeared to be an offhand remark in London early Monday, suggesting that Syria could potentially avoid a U.S. attack if it handed over "every single bit of his chemical weapons" to the international community in the next week.

The State Department initially walked back the remarks. Spokeswoman Marie Harf called them "hypothetical" and "a rhetorical statement about a scenario that we find highly unlikely."

Nevertheless, Russia immediately jumped on the offer. "If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.

And Syria followed, as Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said Tuesday it officially accepted the Russian-led plan.

On Thursday, Kerry and Lavrov began discussing a possible deal in Geneva.

Join the conversation about this story »

President Barack Obama said in a statement on Saturday that the framework of a U.S.-Russian deal over Syria's chemical weapons is an "important, concrete step" toward diplomacy, but emphasized that the U.S. is "prepared to act" if the deal falters.

The framework of the deal ends a whirlwind couple of weeks on Syria, and allows for quick international control over Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles. The goal is elimination of all chemical weapons material and equipment by the first half of 2014.

Here's Obama's full statement:

I welcome the progress made between the United States and Russia through our talks in Geneva, which represents an important, concrete step toward the goal of moving Syria's chemical weapons under international control so that they may ultimately be destroyed. This framework provides the opportunity for the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons in a transparent, expeditious, and verifiable manner, which could end the threat these weapons pose not only to the Syrian people but to the region and the world. The international community expects the Assad regime to live up to its public commitments.
 
While we have made important progress, much more work remains to be done. The United States will continue working with Russia, the United Kingdom, France, the United Nations and others to ensure that this process is verifiable, and that there are consequences should the Assad regime not comply with the framework agreed today. And, if diplomacy fails, the United States remains prepared to act.
 
Following the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons to kill more than 1,000 men, women, and children on August 21, I decided that the United States must take action to deter the Syrian regime from using chemical weapons, degrade their ability to use them, and make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military force, we now have the opportunity to achieve our objectives through diplomacy. I spoke to Secretary Kerry earlier today and thanked him for his tireless and effective efforts on behalf of our nation. I also spoke to Ambassador Samantha Power who will ably lead our follow-on negotiations at the UN Security Council in New York. 

The use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world is an affront to human dignity and a threat to the security of people everywhere. We have a duty to preserve a world free from the fear of chemical weapons for our children. Today marks an important step towards achieving this goal.

SEE ALSO: The key points of the U.S.-Russia agreement on Syria

Join the conversation about this story »

The U.S. and Russia have reached a deal to hand over Assad's chemical weapons stockpiles to the international community for their removal and destruction.

This move allows the U.S. to save face, and it has at least temporarily postponed a U.S. military attack on Syria. But the Syria problem is obviously far from solved.

In all likelihood, the complete removal and destruction of chemical weapons is a pipe dream.

Great news out of Geneva. Win-win: chemical weapons gone, no US military intervention.

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 14, 2013

In the agreement framework provided by the State Department, Syria has a deadline of a week to submit all the information about its chemical weapons ammunition and sites — the ones they've been shuffling all over the country to hide in just the past few days  — and then allow U.N. inspectors to come in.

The agreement then lays out a deadline of "the first half of 2014" for the complete elimination of chemical weapons.

While it sounds great — we've avoided a military strike and worked on a diplomatic solution — there are some major problems with it:

The U.S. is relying on Assad to be truthful in giving up all his chemical weapons sites.

Assad has been at war with his own people for more than two years, and the U.S. and a number of allies have tried to delegitimize his government. To many, Syria has become a failed state. The view of now working with this same regime led Colum Lynch to write an article at Foreign Policy titled "Did the World Just Legitimize the Assad Regime It Spent Years Discrediting?"

"We have been delegitimizing the Syrian regime and suddenly by virtue of this initiative the Assad regime is now a partner of the international community," one senior Arab diplomat told FP. "Of course it's a good thing that these weapons and stockpiles be kept under safe control, but are we not inadvertently undoing what we have been trying to do for two years?"

In Assad, the U.S. has not only a person who would kill huge numbers of his own people, but would continue to lie about even using or having chemical weapons. And yet now, the Syrian president will just have to be trusted to give up all his stockpiles.

In essence, the international community is allowing a dictator to remain in power because he says he wants to give up his weapons of a mass destruction. A source speaking to Lynch brings up ex-Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi and points out that didn't turn out very well the last time it was tried.

Chemical weapons disposal is difficult and takes a long time.

Incineration and neutralization are the two main ways to get rid of chemical weapons, according to Popular Science. Incineration involves extreme heat to turn the toxins into nothing but ash, water and carbon dioxide, while neutralization breaks it down with water and a caustic compound. Both methods still produce waste that needs to be stored or processed further.

But could this happen by "the first half of 2014" as the U.S. and Russia have agreed? Just look to the United States for how long the process really takes.

From PopSci:

Years, more likely decades, depending on the size of the program. In 1986, Congress passed a law mandating destruction of chemical weapons in the United States, and while a tremendous amount of the stockpile has been destroyed, the work will continue well into the next decade, with the last site set to start disposal in 2020.

We also have an example of a nation destroying its entire chemical weapons stockpile in Albania. In 2007, at a cost of $48 million, the nation was chemical weapons free. That process took three years.

There's also the big problem of that major civil war that will be happening right around the people disposing of the toxins. "You can't do it slowly, you can't do it safely," Al Mauroni,  director of the U.S. Air Force counterproliferation center, told PopSci. "There's going to be an obvious security risk the whole time you're trying to dispose of these things."

The "framework" of cooperation between the U.S. and Russia may just turn into a long international stalling match.

The agreement in Geneva on Saturday comes just days after Russian President Vladimir Putin published an op-ed in The New York Times. While many focused on him calling out "American exceptionalism," the passage of Syria's chemical weapons usage is particularly telling:

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

In this, Putin has accused the rebels of gassing themselves — a position completely unfounded by video, physical, and intelligence intercepts of Syrian communications— and as veteran war reporter Sebastian Junger writes,"[it] reminds me of the Serb authorities who said the people of Sarajevo were mortaring themselves; it was just as unconvincing then as it is now."

The passage is also hypocritical. If Putin believes it was the rebels that used chemical weapons, there should be no reason in his mind that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad needs to give up his.

The theoretical diplomatic process was laid out pretty simply this morning on Twitter by Mike Doran, a senior fellow for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute. In a series of tweets, Doran compares the deal to mortgaging the family business to mobster John Gotti.

Here's what Doran tweeted (condensed from four tweets):

"The Putin-Obama CW deal is a veritable cornucopia of meaningless process that appears very weighty. The admin will generate countless meetings which will be held with great solemnity. Skeptics will be told that officials are doing their level best to make the world a little better. The usual suspects will tell us that our statesmen tripped a bit but landed in a good place. They manage to diminish Assad and make Putin 'a stakeholder' in a valuable process. Nonsense!"

Then, he makes the mob analogy in explaining what actually happened (condensed over six tweets):

"Dad just mortgaged the family business to John Gotti, who was all smiles during the deal. Mr. Gotti took the plushest office. Gotti will start putting the screws to Dad soon, but nobody will admit it, b/c that would only humiliate Dad further. An army of pundits will explain how Gotti is more 'complex' than simpletons believe. And Dad is 'sophisticated.'

Dad is as virtuous as a dove but as savvy as a serpent, so he can turn Gotti's venality into a virtue. And to help make the point there will be endless process. Meetings, pronouncements, initiatives, consultations. Dad will put on a good show in public. You'll never see his head pressed on a work bench and his arm twisted up behind his back."

SEE ALSO: With these improvised weapons, it's incredible the Syrian rebels have lasted so long [Photos]

Join the conversation about this story »

How will Syria dispose of its chemical weapons?

Syria has formally applied for membership of the Chemical Weapons Convention. This obliges the country to get rid of its 1,000 tons of chemical gases and nerve agent following a full and immediate declaration of its stocks. It can invite the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to supervise and carry out the task. But the Geneva deal goes above and beyond these requirements. It demands a complete Syrian inventory within one week and unfettered access for chemical weapons inspectors as soon as they arrive.

Can the task be completed in just nine months?

American has spent more than 20 years and $30 billion getting rid of its 30,000 tons but the task is only 90 per cent complete. Russia is similarly behind schedule. Syria has a smaller arsenal but there is a raging civil war that will affect the security of inspectors and the feasibility of large-scale disposal operations. The best prospect is to export the stocks.

Export? How and to where?

America says it has been tracking Syria as it moves its chemical weapons around the country in response to the civil war and the threat of air strikes. It claims the material remains within government controlled zones. These are mostly concentrated around the coast. In the best of conditions the stocks could be taken to the ports and put on ships to Russia, even America.

Is the Syrian government really willing to hand over its deadliest asset?

Everything has its price. The Syrian regime may see this as an opportunity to show it can survive a confrontation with the world's greatest superpower. Furthermore it now knows that further use of the weapons would bring retaliation. Moscow's firm response to events also demonstrates it draws a firm line against chemical weapons. Lastly, the removal of chemical weapons diminishes the likelihood that extremists opposed to the regime will take control of parts of the arsenal and use it against the government.

What if Syria uses negotiations over inspections to drag their feet?

The rebels are significant here. There are clear warnings that while the Damascus government has overall responsibility for the safety of the inspections regime, rebels must also given undertakings for safe conduct. The unknown aspects of this deal are myriad but one of the most potent is daily wrangling over the safety and the free movement of the inspectors. Similar game-playing during the near-decade of weapons inspections in Iraq led to a regular cycle of confrontation and crises.

Russia has conceded that ultimately Syria could face Chapter 7 sanctions, including military action. Does that put Syria on the same path as Iraq?

Bashar al-Assad is not facing the same tests as Saddam Hussein. But it is now forgotten that Saddam did give up practically all his arsenal to the UN-sanctioned inspection regime. Assad appears to have achieved no tactical advantage in eastern Damascus by using the weapons. Instead the attack changed the international political calculus on the conflict. It has improved prospects for a peace conference that could hasten the end of the civil war.

Join the conversation about this story »

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Syria's Minister for National Reconciliation said on Sunday that the chemical weapons agreement between Russia and the United States was a "victory" for Damascus, won by its Russian allies, and had taken away the pretext for war.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called on Saturday in Geneva on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to account for his chemical weapons within a week. The deal may avert U.S. military strikes.

"This agreement, an achievement of Russian diplomats and the Russian leadership, is a victory for Syria won thanks to our Russian friends," Ali Haidar told Russian news agency RIA.

"We welcome this agreement. From one point of view, it will help Syrians exit the crisis, from another, it has prevented a war against Syria, having taken away the pretext for one from those who wanted to unleash (it)," he said.

It was not clear if the comments by Ali Haidar, who is not in President Bashar al-Assad's inner circle of decision-makers, reflects the president's views.

Russia has been Assad's staunchest international ally, protecting him from three consecutive U.N. Security Council resolutions aimed at pressuring him to end a two-and-a-half-year conflict that has killed more than 100,000 people.

(Reporting by Thomas Grove; Editing by Louise Ireland)

Join the conversation about this story »

President Barack Obama fired back at critics of what was a shifting policy toward U.S. involvement in Syria over the past few weeks, telling ABC's George Stephanopoulos that he doesn't care about being graded on "style points."

He also took a shot at Russian President Vladimir Putin's controversial op-ed in the New York Times last week, but he also said he "welcomed" his involvement in a deal brokered by the U.S. and Russia to rid Syria of its chemical weapons stockpile. 

"Folks here in Washington like to grade on style," Obama said in an interview on ABC's "This Week."

"And so had we rolled out something that was very smooth and disciplined and — linear — they would have graded it well, even if it was a disastrous policy. We know that, because that's exactly how they graded the Iraq War — until it ended up blowing up in our face."

The U.S.-Russia deal, the framework of which was agreed to on Saturday, was the end of a furious few weeks surrounding the crisis in Syria.

At the start of it, Obama prepared the U.S. for military intervention in Syria. He went into this week desperately trying to swing votes from members of Congress to authorize military force in Syria. But what was an apparent offhanded comment from Secretary of State John Kerry led to Syria being willing to acknowledge and surrender its chemical-weapons stockpiles.

Obama has found plenty of criticism, especially from Republicans, on his constant shifts. Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) called it "meaningless" in a statement on Saturday. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said on CNN Sunday that it was a "Russian plan for Russian interests."

In the interview on ABC, Obama fired back at the op-ed from Putin in the Times — one in which he challenged the idea of American "exceptionalism," as well as the idea that Syrian rebel forces were to blame for the Aug. 21 chemical-weapons attack that spurred potential U.S. involvement.

"Well, nobody around the world takes seriously the idea that the rebels were the perpetrators of this—" Obama said.                               

"He wrote it in The New York Times," Stephanopoulos said.

"Well, I understand," Obama said. "What I said is nobody around the world takes seriously the idea that the rebels perpetrated this attack."

Obama said Putin is "protecting" Assad. But he said that he has told Putin of both countries' common interest in preventing "chaos" and terrorism.

"The situation in Syria right now is untenable. As long as Mr. Assad's in power, there is going be some sort of conflict there," Obama said.

Join the conversation about this story »

On Sept. 5, a few days before President Barack Obama's decision to strike Syria became a diplomatic effort, Michael Doran of The Brookings Institution explained the situation in very simple terms.

Doran, a senior fellow who specializes in Middle East security issues and served as a senior director at the National Security Council, drew on "The Sopranos" to explain the mindset of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad:

"I do know exactly what Assad is thinking, and I can explain it to you right now ... It is not that hard. The hard thing is figuring out what's actually going on on the ground, who's doing what to whom, and so on.

Once you know that, it's very simple — because ... They want their friends to win, they want to win, and they want us to lose. 

The tools that they have at their disposal to win — their thugs, right — so to use another popular culture reference, all you have to do is watch 'The Sopranos', and then you understand how they're thinking.

Why did they use chemical weapons at Ghouta? For two reasons."

He subsequently argues that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on Aug. 21 in the pivotal Damascus suburb of East Ghouta because "... this is the battle for Damascus, is what this is, and they have failed the Syrians, and failed in conventional terms. And so they went to unconventional to just clear."

As to the reason Assad would do such a thing when U.N. inspectors were in the capital, Doran goes back to the "Sopranos" allusion: Assad "is a thug."

"He's sending a very clear message to all the Syrians who might think of one day taking up arms against him: 'You do that, I'll wipe you out. I'll wipe your family out. And don't you, for a second, think that the United States, the international community, the U.N., or anybody else is going to help you. I'm going to show you how tough I am. Even while these U.N. inspectors are here, I'm going to gas you.'

And that was the message."

It's important to note that all of the published evidence about the munitions used in the attack point to the Syrian government, especially since there is no evidence of rebels using these types of rockets and delivery systems.

Doran goes on to explain the U.S. strategy in the 30-month conflict, which has become a proxy war: 

"We don't have to solve Syria. We don't have to. Our interests are: Protect our friends, build up our friends, punish our enemies, create a framework that allows other people to get on the ground to do stuff, so that we don't have to do it. That's international politics."

The reason the U.S. finds itself on the same side as some rebels fighting for al Qaeda, according to Doran, is incidental to the primary objective:

"The way to figure out who your side is is, who do you want to have the most pain? And that's Iran. We want to make Iran suffer, and we want to make Assad suffer. 

And then we go down the line, and we say, "Who can we wind up to do that, that isn't going to cause us pain?"

And by the time — when we get down to some of the al Qaeda elements — and not all of them, by the way — then we say, 'You're on the other side.'

But there's a lot of people out there we can work with."

Great stuff. Check it out: 

SEE ALSO: Five Enormous Obstacles Facing The Syria Chemical Weapons Agreement

Join the conversation about this story »

Nearly half the rebel fighters in Syria are now aligned to jihadist or extremist Islamist groups according to a new analysis of factions in the country's civil war.

Opposition forces battling Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria now number around 100,000 fighters, but after more than two years of fighting they are fragmented into as many as 1,000 bands.

The new study by IHS Jane's, a defence consultancy, estimates there are around 10,000 jihadists - who would include foreign fighters - fighting for powerful factions linked to al-Qaeda..

Another 30,000 to 35,000 are hard-line Islamists who share much of the outlook of the jihadists, but are focused purely on the Syrian war rather than a wider international struggle.

There are also at least a further 30,000 moderates belonging to groups that have an Islamic character, meaning only a small minority of the rebels are linked to secular or purely nationalist groups.

The stark assessment, to be published later this week, accords with the view of western diplomats estimate that less than one third of the opposition forces are "palatable" to Britain, while American envoys put the figure even lower.

Fears that the rebellion against the Assad regime is being increasingly dominated by extremists has fuelled concerns in the West over supplying weaponry that will fall into hostile hands. These fears contributed to unease in the US and elsewhere over military intervention in Syria.

Charles Lister, author of the analysis, said: "The insurgency is now dominated by groups which have at least an Islamist viewpoint on the conflict. The idea that it is mostly secular groups leading the opposition is just not borne out."

The study is based on intelligence estimates and interviews with activists and militants. The lengthy fighting has seen the emergence of hundreds of separate rebel bands, each operating in small pockets of the country, which are usually loyal to larger factions.

Two factions linked to al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), have come to dominate among the more extremist fighters, Mr Lister said. Their influence has risen significantly in the past year.

"Because of the Islamist make up of such a large proportion of the opposition, the fear is that if the West doesn't play its cards right, it will end up pushing these people away from the people we are backing," he said. "If the West looks as though it is not interested in removing Assad, moderate Islamists are also likely to be pushed further towards extremists."

Though still a minority in number, ISIL has become more prominent in rebel-held parts of Syria in recent months. Members in northern Syria have sought to assert their dominance over the local population and over the more moderate rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The aim of moderate rebel fighters is the overthrow of their country's authoritarian dictator, but jihadist groups want to transform Syria into a hard-line Islamic state within a regional Islamic "caliphate".

These competing visions have caused rancour which last week erupted into fighting between ISIL and two of the larger moderate rebel factions.

A statement posted online by Islamists announced the launch of an ISIL military offensive in the eastern district of Aleppo which it called "Cleansing Evil". "We will target regime collaborators, shabiha [pro-Assad militias], and those who blatantly attacked the Islamic state," it added, naming the Farouq and Nasr factions.

Al-Qaeda has assassinated several FSA rebel commanders in northern Latakia province in recent weeks, and locals say they fear this is part of a jihadist campaign to gain complete control of the territory.

As well as being better armed and tougher fighters, ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra have taken control of much of the income-generating resources in the north of the country, including oil, gas and grain.

This has given them significant economic clout, allowing them to "win hearts and minds" by providing food for the local population in a way that other rebel groups cannot.

ISIS has also begun a programme of "indoctrination" of civilians in rebel-held areas, trying to educate Syria's traditionally moderate Sunni Muslims into a more hard-line interpretation of Islam.

In early September, the group distributed black backpacks with the words "Islamic State of Iraq" stamped on them. They also now control schools in Aleppo where young boys are reportedly taught to sing jihadist anthems.

"It seems it is some sort of a long-term plan to brainwash the children and recruit potential fighters," said Elie Wehbe, a Lebanese journalists who is conducting research into these activities.

Join the conversation about this story »

Someone may need to check Russian President Vladimir Putin's math.

The world celebrated the brilliance of Putin's political calculus when he jumped on a possible mistake from U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to force the U.S. to stand down on cruise missile strikes.

Kerry had (some say inadvertently) hypothesized that Syria could avoid strikes by turning over its chemical weapons.

Now the U.S. and Russia have agreed on a supposedly peaceful plan to get rid of Syria's chemical weapons ; however, many say that disposing of those weapons will require foreign boots on the ground.

Richard Sisk of Military.com highlights Pentagon Press Secretary John Little's statement late last week when journalists asked him if the international agreement would require U.S. military presence.

"I'm not going to speculate on who may or may not be participating in a process that may or may not take place," Little said. "We've got to see where the process goes" before the U.S. military considers involvement, he said.

The Pentagon is predictably implicated in whatever "diplomatic" solution arises to Syria's chemical weapons because it was the Pentagon's own study which said securing President Bashar al Assad's chemical stockpile in a "non-permissive environment" would require 75,000 troops.

A civil war is a non-permissive environment, and Assad's history of ceasefires doesn't look good.

“We’re talking boots on the ground,” said one former United Nations weapons inspector from Iraq told the New York Times, adding that any troops sent to carry out the task "will be a target for someone, for one group or another. Because no matter who you are, you get mortared somewhere by one of the parties.”

The Iraqi disarmament took years, and that was with a willing government, which had control of its borders. Assad's stockpile — one of the largest in the world — is ringed not only by a raging civil war, but hostile Hezbollah militants.

It's not just a question of security either. Disposing of Sarin and deadly chemicals in a "non-permissive" environment is also a matter of technical capability.

"These things only work if you use a supplier of neutral troops — like Ghana, Ireland, Switzerland — but I don’t see any of them being able to do something like this,"said Dan Kaszeta, who has served as a chemical weapons specialist with the U.S. Army and Department of Defense and now runs the consultancy Strongpoint Security in London.

Join the conversation about this story »

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons bargain with Russia and the United States offers another political and military lifeline to the Syrian president, just two years after he was dismissed in Washington as a "dead man walking".

The deal, reached under the shadow of threatened U.S. air strikes and only after the intervention of Syria's ally Moscow, does come at a cost to the Syrian leader - a fact which likely explains the muted response in Damascus when it was announced.

By requiring Assad to surrender a chemical weapons arsenal which until last week his government had barely acknowledged, it would strip him of both a fearsome military advantage over rebels at home and his most potent deterrent to any further attacks by Syria's enemy Israel.

But in the short term at least the Russian initiative, which Syria announced it would accept on the eve of the president's 48th birthday last week, was a gift for Assad.

It lifts the immediate threat of U.S. military action and secures his government an indispensable role over the coming months in assisting the destruction of chemical stockpiles.

"You're looking at a re-legitimized regime here. Not just Assad but the whole entourage," said Ayham Kamel, an analyst at the Eurasia consultancy group. "For the foreseeable future the government of Syria has become the key interlocutor for the international community".

Since the early months of Syria's 2011 uprising, which has grown into a civil war in which 100,000 people have been killed, the United States has called on Assad to step aside. U.S., European, and Middle East foes have all predicted his imminent overthrow at various stages of the conflict.

"NO LEGITIMACY"

A U.S. official described Assad's government in December 2011 as a "the equivalent of a dead man walking", and the State Department insisted last week that the deal on chemical weapons did not change Washington's position that he "has no legitimacy and can no longer be ruler of Syria".

But however unpalatable the notion may be to President Barack Obama, only Assad and his officials can deliver the deal which U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov agreed out in Geneva on Saturday.

While Kerry said the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons must be complete by the middle of next year, the tortuous U.N. disarmament of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons in the 1990s showed how long the process can stretch out.

U.S. officials believe Syria has 1,000 tons of chemical agents including mustard gas and nerve gases such as sarin, and have identified 45 sites they say are associated with the chemical weapons program.

Even if those sites are under the control of Assad's army, Syria's civil war will complicate the task of destroying the materials safely, providing plenty of room for delay even if Damascus is totally sincere in its commitment.

"We are at a very preliminary stage. Assad's partial cooperation was prompted by the desire to deter an attack," Kamel said. "It's not clear that (cooperation) will be there in the future".

"BACK TO BUSINESS"

The reprieve from U.S. military action has allowed Assad to strike back at rebels with forces which were briefly dispersed to avoid U.S. air strikes.

Activists and Damascus residents reported last week that his air force resumed bombardment of opposition strongholds around the capital, some of them close to the sites of the August 21 chemical attacks which prompted the threat of U.S. strikes.

"Essentially it's back to business, continuing what the military was doing in the days before the chemical attack," said Charles Lister, analyst at IHS Jane's terrorism and insurgency centre in London.

"They are viciously suppressing pro-opposition areas around Damascus with artillery and air strikes. That means there is no longer the fear of Western punishment for anything the military may have done."

Syria has denied U.S. allegations that its forces were responsible for last month's chemical attacks around Damascus, and earlier suspected chemical incidents in the capital, Homs and the northern provinces of Aleppo and Idlib.

Assad's opponents, who had hoped that the anticipated U.S. attacks would offer a platform for broader rebel offensives across the country, see the chemical bargain as a betrayal.

"A crime against humanity has been committed and there is no mention of accountability," said Salim Idriss, head of the Western-backed Supreme Military Council which oversees a loose grouping of non-jihadist rebels known as the Free Syrian Army.

The shelving of U.S. military action is also a setback for Idriss's regional backers, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Riyadh had called for a "decisive and serious" stand against Assad.

But the president's close ally Iran, which has provided economic and military assistance to his government, quickly welcomed the chemical weapons initiative.

Lister said Idriss's despair should be a warning for his Western and Arab backers, who hope that the fractured FSA rebels can emerge as a counterweight to the growing strength of radical Islamists and al Qaeda-linked fighters.

Idriss's limited influence over the FSA brigades stems from his position as a conduit for outside support.

"There have been questions about his control over the so-called 'moderate opposition'," Lister said. "If he does have any control, large portions will now look at him and his perceived ability to attract Western backing as significantly weaker than was the case a few days ago."

"What has happened now is a Russian and U.S. deal that legitimizes the al Qaeda line that the West acts only in its own interests and won't intervene unless it suits those interests."

NO TRIUMPHALISM

In the first government comments following Saturday's U.S.-Russian announcement, Syrian minister Ali Haidar described the chemical deal as a victory for Syria.

But most Syrian officials, including Assad himself, have been more muted in their response, perhaps reflecting unease that Damascus had found itself renouncing overnight a strategic arsenal it has stockpiled for decades.

Syria had always said that any move to abandon weapons of mass destruction should apply to all countries in the region including Israel, long believed to be the only nuclear-armed Middle East nation.

Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem gave only a brief and subdued statement in Moscow last week when he first declared Syria's welcome for the Russian initiative.

Assad showed no sign of triumph when he told a Russian television interviewer on Friday that he agreed to the proposal to prevent the United States from launching a "regional war".

The interview was Assad's third in a week with foreign media but he has not addressed Syrians directly on the issue.

"They are not boasting too much, because they had to make an extremely significant concession by offering to destroy the chemical weapons - although I'm skeptical it will work out at as a successful deal," Lister said.

But in the meantime "they will have received a big boost in terms of confidence".

(Editing by Giles Elgood)

Join the conversation about this story »

The light on the discussions on Syria in Geneva between the U.S. and Russian foreign ministers is dim and flickering and may well be snuffed out. But at least there's a light.

For the light to become brighter, world powers must declare war not on each other, but on noxious geopolitics. It is time to end the zero-sum game. World leaders are magnetized to its bare calculus: if you're up, I'm down. It's not a pleasant equation, but it's terribly hard to give up.

Vladimir Putin is a great aficionado of the game, partly because he was trained to be, as a KGB officer. All secret service people think that way. In their often brutal world, when your enemy wins, you are pretty sure to have lost. It's likely that Putin enjoys his success in delaying the U.S.-led putative strike against President Assad of Syria as a move that establishes himself as a world figure with the future of Syria in his hands, while President Obama flails about, seeking to keep the military option on the table while constrained to follow Putin's way. The Russian autocrat has put himself in tune with public opinion in the U.S. and Europe, and put a shine both on himself and on autocracy.

The op-ed he wrote this week, published in the New York Times, and placed there by the PR company Ketchum, was artfully crafted for Western popular assent — right down to the final sentence, an injunction that "we must not forget that God created us equal."

Putin's proposing himself as an angel of peace is rich. The last Times op-ed he published, in 1999, justified his flattening of much of Chechnya in pursuit of peace — which was indeed largely achieved — in the rebel Russian province. But the pleasures of cynicism are shallow. In the zero-sum game he has improved his position — and Obama is left with wails of anguish over his "weakness" and "indecision" from every quarter, liberal and conservative, domestic and foreign.

The pursuit of a paradigm other than the "zero-sum game" goes beyond Russia. At the meeting in June between Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping, both sides pledged themselves to find a "new type of great power relationship." Like Putin, the Chinese want this to be a relationship between equals — even if they don't invoke God to make sure it is. Equality is a fine goal; it absolutely negates playing zero-sum games; and it's one of the sine qua nons of keeping the light above Geneva from going out.

A theme of Obama's presidency has been the proposed deceleration of America's global policeman role. Obama has sought an accord that both respects other major powers but also safeguards America and its allies' interests, and asserts his values of democratic rule and concern for human rights. It's hard to do that with empires — even when, as in the American case, it isn't an empire in the classic, British/French/Austro-Hungarian/Russian models. Imperial power can keep the peace, but it also creates many enemies inside its boundaries and out, and stirs vast resentments in other would-be powerful states, which may harbor imperial ambitions of their own.

As Reuters columnist Zachary Karabell noted about Obama recently, the gradual reduction of U.S. dominance may "prove to be one of his greatest legacies," adding later, "even though the diminution of presidential power is not the kind of thing that makes for compelling historical narrative." It certainly doesn't: more, it frightens allies and encourages opponents.

What a real, active relationship among equals could do is extraordinary, because the threats are so huge. Iran's nuclear program, among many other threats, have highlighted the need for a nuclear-free world. The U.S. cannot — never really could — contain these trends, or any others. It takes a global accord, and global action.

That kind of vision has in the past seemed utopian, and has been the preserve of idealistic liberals and people of faith, whom men and women of power could sometimes indulge, but dismiss as dreamers. Power was the world currency, and those who held it must keep or expand it, else they would in time cease to be masters and become victims.

That has been and is still the malign calculus of nation states. It is the way an imperial presidency that is also a democracy works: weakness empowers the opposition, which promises a return of strength. It is also the need of autocrats: Russian and Chinese leaders need to show strength abroad as well as at home, or the basis of their rule trembles.

But the slim promise of Geneva, a process that may indeed be the product of clever chess moves byGrandmaster Vladimir, is that another calculus begins to enter into the equation. It cannot be achieved by unilateral renunciation of force, or by grand gestures. It must be achieved by painstaking, lengthy and determined negotiation — infused by the realization that the old game of zero-sum is played out. Nobody is winning.

(The author is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Join the conversation about this story »

This afternoon in Paris, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the United Nations, not the United States, would be enforcing the terms of the Syria chemical weapons deal agreed to this weekend.

Kerry said that the United States, France and Great Britain “will not tolerate avoidance or anything less than full compliance." Kerry, while visiting Israel this past weekend, also said that the “the threat of force is real” if Syria does not comply with the terms of the deal. 

But by giving enforcement power to the United Nations, Kerry has essentially invalidated any threats of force by the United States. This is for a very simple reason: any use of force authorized by the United Nations needs Russia’s approval. And events in recent weeks show that Vladimir Putin is not likely to budge from his position that military forced should not be used.

Details about how the agreement would be enforced were vague all weekend. Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that the agreement would be backed by a U.N. Security Council resolution but gave no details on what that resolution would include as punishment for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s non-compliance.

Had the agreement been enforced by the United States, President Obama could authorize military strikes if Assad refused to surrender his chemical weapons. Now, the most likely punishments are sanctions against his government.

This is precisely why the terms of the Syrian deal were met with skepticism in Israel. Lawmakers there said they were excited by the prospect that a long-time regional ally would be stripped of its chemical weapons. But they were not optimistic that Assad could be trusted.

Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz called the proposal "substantive" but warned, "We know Assad. All kinds of things could happen."

Avigdor Lieberman, chairman of the Israeli parliament’s foreign affairs and defense committee, said the only option now was to wait to see if Assad complies.

“After we see the list of what Assad has handed over in a week, we can know if his intentions are serious of if it is just deception," Lieberman told Israeli Army Radio.

More From The Fiscal Times:
Does Poverty Lead To Poor Decision Making?
Putin Taunts Obama Over Syria Ahead Of G-20 Meeting
Guess Who's Hogging All The Part Time Jobs?

Join the conversation about this story »

The Syrian Civil war seemed to have entered the realm of grotesque parody when offhand comments from Secretary of State John Kerry shifted the entire global strategy with regard to the regime's suspected use of chemical weapons.

The supposed "diplomatic solution" Washington stumbled into involves President Bashar Al Assad voluntarily identifying his weapons stockpiles, while U.N. inspectors locate and destroy those stockpiles.

Though the media widely reported this "diplomatic solution," less reported was that reducing Assad's gigantic chemical weapons stores would likely require significant outside military assistance: what one analyst called "an armed invasion."

This, often vague, media coverage prompted Tom A. Peter of the Christian Science Monitor to write that "some of the best analysis" on Syria comes from The Onion.

So here's 9 Onion headlines we think do a good job of explaining Syria:

1. John Kerry Costs US Defense Industry $400 Billion (Sept. 10, 2013)

John Kerry's statements largely led to a shift away from what seemed inevitable strikes on Syria.

From The Onion:

“With thousands of new munitions and logistical support contracts, Syria would have been a goldmine for us. I swear to God, if this doesn’t work out John Kerry owes us half a trillion dollars.”

2. Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria (Sept. 5, 2013)

This headline came on the heels of polls that showed the only thing less popular than Congress was Congress voting to enter the Syrian conflict.

From The Onion:

The majority of survey respondents said they believe the United States should refocus its entire approach to Syria’s civil war on the ground deployment of U.S. senators and representatives, regardless of whether the Assad regime used chemical weapons or not.

3. Target Of Future Drone Attack Urges American Intervention In Syria (Sept. 5, 2013)

Quite a bit of speculation has surrounded American arms shipments and support of nebulous, loosely affiliated rebel groups — some of whom may have ties to hardcore Al Qaeda extremists.

From The Onion:

 “President Obama and American forces must step in and help us overthrow Assad,” said the radical Islamist who will be the object of what will one day be an intense and lengthy manhunt by the CIA and whose death will reportedly be hailed as a major strategic victory by counterterrorism officials.

4. Assad Unable To Convince Putin That He Used Chemical Weapons On Syrians (Sept. 4, 2013)

It's pretty hard not to notice Russia's willful ignorance when it comes to exactly who used those chemical weapons in Syria. They even went so far as to issue a 100-page official report pointing at the rebels as the perpetrators of Sarin gas use in Syria.

From The Onion:

“Given the information I’ve seen at this point, President Assad failed to show me clear, substantiated evidence that he used chemical weapons against the Syrian people, regardless of how many times he says ‘I, Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, am the one who did this’ while showing me videos of people dying of Sarin poisoning,” said [Russian President Vladimir] Putin.

5. Obama Assures Americans This Will Not Be Another 1456 Ottoman Siege Of Belgrade (Sep. 3, 2013)

The dismal Iraq War hung gloomily over any prospect of bombing Syria, and Obama frequently sought to differentiate one bad war from what many people considered would be another bad war.

From The Onion:

Obama was reportedly adamant that the United States is not acting on poor or shortsighted intelligence, unlike the 15th-century Turks who underestimated the difficulty in quelling Belgrade’s peasant army. The president also claimed that the current situation in Syria, when closely examined, “barely resembles the fight against St. John of Capistrano and his crusaders when they breached the Ottoman camp.”

6. Syria Conflict Intensifies As Bears Enter War (Aug. 28, 2013)

American have fought in Syria. Brits have fought in Syria. Kurds, Libyans, and Al Qaeda militias in Iraq have even fought in Syria. There's also been sightings of Russian and Iranian military, as well as Hezbollah from Lebanon.

At this point, bears would not be a surprise.

From The Onion:

“I don’t know what side the bears are on, but at this point it might not even matter,” he continued. “They’re everywhere and they’re extremely angry.”

7. Experts Point To Long, Glorious History Of Successful U.S. Bombing Campaigns (Aug. 27, 2013)

This headline followed the Obama administration's scramble to launch cruise missiles at Syria just days following the alleged gas attack Aug. 21.

From The Onion:

All experts on the subject then agreed unanimously that, if you want to create positive and lasting change in a troubled region ... then bombing campaigns are almost always the way to go.

8. Family Concerned After John McCain Wanders Into Syria (May 28. 2013)

Senator John McCain made a very public appearance with what he claimed to be "moderate" Syrian rebels during a visit to the civil war ostensibly aimed at garnering support for military action.

Meanwhile, others claimed that he appeared with war criminals responsible for the kidnapping of Lebanese missionaries, highlighting the difficulties of vetting Syrian rebel groups for American support.

From The Onion:

“Then one of us has to go to Syria, pick him up, and bring him back to Washington. We’re going to have to sit down soon and decide what to do about this before he seriously hurts himself,” [said McCain's wife.]

9. Having Gone This Far Without Caring About Syria, Nation To Finish What It Started (Nov. 12, 2012)

The Syrian civil war never seemed more than a blip on America's pop culture radar, until chemical weapons killed a suspected 1,400 people near Damascus — but even then, national public interest was more focused on disapproval of military action than anything else. 

From The Onion:

More than a year and a half after the conflict began, Americans across the country confirmed Monday that, having come this far without displaying any discernible interest whatsoever in the ongoing uprising in Syria, they are now determined to “finish the job.”

Join the conversation about this story »

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The Israeli ambassador to the United States says Israel has wanted to see Syrian President Bashar al-Assad removed from power since before the outbreak of war there - a shift from its publicly-stated position.

It sees his defeat by rebels who include al Qaeda-linked Islamists as preferable to his current alliance with Iran, ambassador Michael Oren said.

His comments in an interview with the Jerusalem Post marked a move in Israel's public position on the civil war in Syria. Though old enemies, a stable stand-off has endured between the two countries during Assad's rule.

Unlike Israeli President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stopped short of publicly urging Assad's overthrow and Israeli officials have long warned of the danger that al Qaeda-aligned rebel forces could turn their guns on Israel if the Syrian leader fell.

But, Oren said: "The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran." Oren said.

This was Israel's position well before the outbreak of war in Syria and had continued to be so, he said.

Assad's overthrow would also weaken the alliance between Israel's arc foe Iran and Tehran-backed Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas, Oren said.

"The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc.

Oren described al Qaeda-aligned rebels as "pretty bad guys" but said that others were less radical.

Israel believes around one in 10 Syrian rebels are Sunni militants sworn to its destruction. Assad's Alawite sect is closer to the rival Shi'ite Islam of Iran and Hezbollah.

In the interview, excerpted ahead of its publication in full on Friday, Oren - a Netanyahu confidant - did not say if or how Israel was promoting Assad's fall.

Netanyahu casts Iran's disputed nuclear drive as the main threat to Israel and world stability.

The Jewish state, which is widely assumed to have the region's sole atomic arsenal, has played down any direct Syrian threat to it but is concerned that a weak Western policy towards Assad could encourage Iran.

(Writing by Dan Williams, Editing by Jeffrey Heller and Angus MacSwan)

Join the conversation about this story »

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia said on Tuesday it still suspected an August 21 chemical weapons attack in Syria was carried out by rebel forces, despite a report by U.N. investigators which France said showed the government was behind the attack.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius set out their countries' opposing views following talks in Moscow, one day after the investigators confirmed the deadly nerve agent sarin was used in the attack.

"We have very serious grounds to believe that this was a provocation," Lavrov said of the attack, which the United States has said killed more than 1,400 people in rebel-held areas.

Lavrov, whose country has been the Syrian government's most important ally in the civil war, said there had been "many provocations" by the rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad's government and added: "They were all aimed, over the last two years, at provoking foreign intervention."

He said the U.N. investigators' report proved that chemical weapons had been used but that "there is no answer to a number of questions we have asked," including whether the weapons were produced in a factory or home-made.

Speaking alongside Lavrov at a joint news conference after their talks, Fabius said the report was convincing.

"When you look at the amount of sarin gas used, the vectors, the techniques behind such an attack, as well as other aspects, it seems to leave no doubt that the (Assad) regime is behind it," Fabius said.

(Reporting by Alissa de Carbonnel and Gabriela Baczynska in Moscow and John Irish in Paris, Writing by Steve Gutterman, Editing by Timothy Heritage)

Join the conversation about this story »

It is known that Syrian rebels have had to rely on jerry-rigged weapons, and it appears some fighters have turned to technology to upgrade their gear.

Mohamed Abdullah of Reuters took this fascinating picture of Free Syrian Army rebels using an iPad to guide mortar fire outside of Damascus. 

Business Insider reporter Paul Szoldra held almost every billet in the 81mm Mortar Platoon and instructed new mortarmen when he served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 2002 to 2010.

These rebels, according to Szoldra, appear to be using an app to level the tube because they don't have sights on the mortars to help level it out and aim at a target.

Here's Paul's analysis of the operation:

The baseplate is way too sunk in (which means they've been firing from that position for at least a while ... every round it goes lower.) You can see the bipod in front how far forward it is.

The other thing is the elevation of the tube. It's almost straight up. Either they are trying to kill themselves and fire a round that will land right back on top of them, or where they are shooting is extremely close to them.

Paul added that even with the iPad, the lack of sights means it looks like "they are simply dropping a round and praying."

SEE ALSO: With These Improvised Weapons, It's Incredible The Syrian Rebels Have Lasted So Long [PHOTOS]

Join the conversation about this story »

More details about the downing of a Syrian helicopter are emerging.

Turkish General Staff released a statement and published the radar track history regarding the incident.

Here’s how the incident unfold:

1. The Syrian Mi-17 Hip was first detected as possible intruder and immediately tracked by the Diyarbakir CAOC (Combined Air Operations Center) at 13:41 LT, while it was 26 NM (nautical miles) from the border. 

2. CAOC repeatedly issued warnings to the helicopters until it was 5 NM from the border

3. The helicopter intruded Turkish airspace at 14:25 near Guvecci Gendarmerie Post at Yayladag, Hatay province at 14,200 ft and 2km depth.

4. Two F-16Cs that were on CAP (Combat Air Patrol) nearby were diverted to intercept the helicopter

5. The helicopter was shot down at 14:27 and crashed at 1km within the Syrian side of the border.

Here below you can see a video showing the Syrian helicopter falling to the ground after being hit.

And in the following video you can see the wreckage of the downed Hip.
H/T to Arda Mevlutoglu for translating the additional details about the interception

Join the conversation about this story »

I confess I have been amazed and impressed with the chutzpah behind Russia’s most recent proposal for a US military strike to be forestalled by Syria’s agreement to place its chemical weapons stockpile under international control.

And likewise struck by the rather pathetic enthusiasm with which the US government–which until very recently was charging towards some kind of military action and grumbling about the Russians being the pals and protectors of mass murderers–has hailed this as a potential “breakthrough“. (It should be a warning sign when Damascus says that “We fully support Russia’s initiative”.)

Let’s think this through. Accept that Assad either ordered the use of gas or at the very least retrospectively sanctioned it (in case, for example, it was an initiative of his brother Maher, who apparently makes Bashar look like a cuddle-bunny). So Washington says that whereas the 200,000-or-so previous deaths from this civil war were reprehensible, the 400, thousand, however many may have been killed by gas are inexcusable. OK; it may not make sense but the rules of the international system are that gas is Very Bad and so those who use it must be punished.

Then, having cranked up the engine of war, readied the cruise missiles that can deliver a relatively safe and relatively accurate strike (admittedly for about $1.4M a pop), the White House suffers an acute crisis of confidence. The Russians have dug in their heels, the Brits, previously always willing to lay blood and treasure on the altar of the “special relationship”, decide that this night they are washing their hair. The Republicans have become born-again peaceniks and don’t propose to give Obama an easy war.

Suddenly, the USA is willing to accept that surrendering the capacity to launch another gas strike is a suitable punishment. In real terms, Damascus loses nothing: no capabilities that it could credibly use again (without making a US strike unavoidable).

That’s a little like my being shot and wounded and saying that it would be quite enough if my would-be assassin loses his gun.

I’ve been deeply skeptical about the value of US military action in Syria, not because I don’t want to see an evil regime swept away (I do), but because I don’t think that an arm’s length military intervention–the only sort this administration appears presently willing to stomach–would do anything but harm in the long run, precipitating a slide into regional anarchy. Cruise missiles blow things up; they do not build functioning, stable states. If Bashar al-Assad “must go” as US figures from Obama down have asserted, then bite the bullet; those cruise missiles can also do a good job of assassination, if need be. If creating a stable and peaceful Syria is that important, then the USA or the international community needs to accept another long and–witness Iraq, Afghanistan, etc–in the short- and medium-term miserable job of “boots on the ground” and “body bags coming home” nation-building.

So on the one hand I suppose I am pleased by this eleventh-hour flip-floppery. But it is the nature of the compromise and the optics that alarm and depress me. I’m honestly not sure how far this is the product of brilliant brinksmanship by Putin and his foreign minister, Lavrov (and in fairness, they have proven a distinctly effective combination, playing an equally distinctive and effective game of creative obstruction), and how far it is a critical weakness in the White House, but it very definitely leaves Putin looking like the victor. A US president unwilling to take a lead and commit himself to what would undoubtedly be a controversial military strike has now been rescued by the very Russian counterpart whom he snubbed on his G20 visit.

Putin will no doubt consider this a victory, and be buoyed by it, rendered more confident. And Putin is not a man to let momentum and an advantage go to waste.

Join the conversation about this story »

Showtime's "Homeland" planned to shoot the majority of its third season in Israel, but production has been relocated to Morocco over concerns about the political situation in Syria.

Over the weekend, the American producers told the Israeli production company that was arranging locations and shoots that they would be filming in Morocco instead because of security fears, reports Israeli news outlet Ynet.

"We were already getting organized, we even received scripts, and in the end we were told that the shooting had been moved. It's frustrating," a source with knowledge of the details told Ynet.

According to their estimates, the Israeli production company reportedly lost hundreds of thousands of shekels following the change in location.

Fears of a Syrian retaliation over potential military action by the U.S. have been growing in Israel, and Morocco is seen as a more stable location.

It's not a surprising location change considering "Homeland" creators Howard Gordon and Gideon Raff are working on another project, a separate series called "Tyrant," also set to be filmed in Morocco.

Bit this isn't the first time "Homeland" has faced controversy abroad.

The Emmy-winning show was criticised last year by Lebanese tourism officials for portraying Beirut as a city packed with terrorists and showing an area looking rundown and dangerous — when in fact it is filled with luxury boutiques.

Homeland is scheduled to return for a third season on Sept. 29. Watch the trailer below:

SEE ALSO: Celebrities Are Finally Speaking Out On Syria — Bashing And Applauding Obama On Twitter

Join the conversation about this story »

The confusion surrounding the American response to the Syrian government gassing its own people has shocked foreign policy wonks. Here is Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, after the president threw the problem to Congress, then, facing defeat, handed negotiations with Bashar al-Assad to his nemesis Vladimir Putin: "The President has essentially allowed the red line in Syria to be somewhat ignored." And here isHaass's final verdict on the president's dillydallying: "Words like ‘ad-hoc,' ‘improvised,' ‘unsteady' come to mind. This is probably the most undisciplined stretch of foreign policy of his presidency."

There is little sign the president has yet grasped the cost of contradicting all his top foreign policy advisors. Secretary of State John Kerry, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel were each asked for advice, then ignored. Obama appears oblivious to the fact that his fumbling over Syria has severely diminished his authority, even among close colleagues and his own party. He is under the impression that marching to the top of Capitol Hill and marching down again and backward flipping on decisive action against a despotic perpetrator of dastardly mass murder is simply a matter of "style."

He seems to think his real enemies are not Assad, Putin, Ali Khamenei, Iran's top mullah, and Kim Jong-un, the North Korean tyrant, but "folks here in Washington.""Had we rolled out something that was very smooth and disciplined and linear would have graded it well, even if it was a disastrous policy," he told George Stephanopoulos.

The president's erratic behavior over Syria, the political equivalent of texting while driving, has profoundly undermined his credibility. It may mean he sits out the next three years as a lame duck president, fiddling with designs for his memorial library in Honolulu, instead of steering the country back to prosperity. But the immediate test of his failure to fulfill his threat to punish Syria when it crossed the red line on poison gas will be his next great domestic confrontation with Congress: the impending vote on raising the debt ceiling.

Obama has drawn a red line on the debt ceiling and over the weekend repeated his resolve not to discuss the issue with Republicans. "What I haven't been willing to negotiate, and I will not negotiate, is on the debt ceiling," he said. But why should anyone in Congress believe him? If Assad can cross an Obama red line, why not House majority leader John Boehner?

Boehner would probably be satisfied, like the president, if lifting the debt ceiling by October 1 were linked to adjusting some of the sequester's most destructive cuts to public spending. There is plainly room for maneuver when moderate Republican lawmakers want to halt deep cuts to the military and Democrats want to reinstate some social programs that help the poor and needy.

But, while Boehner enjoys the title House Majority Leader, he is not the leader of the majority in the House, where Tea Party types rule the roost and dictate party policy. The Tea Party people have said they will not raise the debt ceiling, are determined to defund the Affordable Care Act, and do not have the neo-conservatives' affection for military spending. They are prepared to allow the American government to default on its debts rather than give in on any of these points.

One of the oddest aspects of the recent mayhem in Washington is why the president asked Congress to help him over Syria when he knew a majority in the House are opposed to anything he suggests, irrespective of its merits, because they detest him as much as for how he looks as for what he believes in. As he explained to Stephanopoulos, "We have a faction of the Republican Party, in the House of Representatives in particular, that view ‘compromise' as a dirty word, and anything that is even remotely associated with me, they feel obliged to oppose."

In those circumstances, asking Congress to help him out of a hole in Syria was as inept as asking Putin to save him from having to send in the cruises. Yet within the space of two days the president did both.

The Syria debacle has shown that defying the president has its own rewards. Assad was threatened with punitive action if he dared use chemical weapons; he did and will not be punished. The president's policy used to be to hold Assad's regime to account for using chemical weapons; now it is merely to help confiscate the weapons so he won't do it again. And even that depends on the good offices of Russia to ensure that the cornered Assad, facing not just the extinction of his regime but of him and his family, does not gas again. So much for the president's promise to provide justice for the 1,400 gassed to death.

The lesson for House Republicans is that Obama's word is not his bond. When push comes to shove he backs off. He lacks their resolve. They live in a universe of specific goals and absolutes and he lives in a world where promises are wishful thinking and final warnings are followed by a wagging finger.

Next week, the president will be preoccupied with the U.N. general assembly and a likely meeting with the new Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani. The following week the debt ceiling agreement lapses. Two weeks later — or thereabouts — the government runs out of cash and starts closing departments and cutting services. There is little time left to talk.

With the debt deadline looming, will the president blink as he did when Assad ignored his warnings? Will he start negotiating rather than allow further damage to America's prestige when the nation starts to default on its debts? It would be out of character if the House Republicans did not march over the president's red line, if only to see what happens.

(Nicholas Wapshott is a Reuters columnist. Opinions are his own.)

Join the conversation about this story »