Obama: Strike 'absolutely' on hold if Syria abandons weapons {International Power Broker Deal at G 20 }
September 9, 2013 | 6:15PM ET | Updated 7:45PM ET
Russia appeals to Syria to hand over weapons arsenal to international community as Congress debates US strike
President Obama says Russia's proposal on Syria was a "potentially positive development."
President Barack Obama told ABC News Monday that any proposed strike against Syria would "absolutely" be put on hold if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad agreed to turn over chemical weapons that the United States and its allies have accused him of using during an attack near Damascus last month that left more than 1,400 people dead.
Confronted by the threat of U.S. air strikes, Syria on Monday welcomed the idea -- put forth by its close ally Russia -- of turning over all of its chemical weapons to the control of the international community. The weapons would then be destroyed, according to Moscow’s proposal.
While Obama called Syria’s response "a potentially positive development," he added that it would need to be taken "with a grain of salt" while speaking to NBC News.
"We are going to run this to ground," Obama told NBC News. "John Kerry will be talking to his Russian counterpart. We're going to make sure that we see how serious these proposals are."
With the discussion about Syria's chemical-weapons stockpile taking center stage, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., delayed a procedural vote on authorizing strikes against Syria that was scheduled for Wednesday. It's unclear when the vote will take place.
Obama, meanwhile, conceded that he may lose his campaign in Congress for authorization. "I wouldn't say I'm confident" of the outcome, he said, adding, "I haven't decided" on a next step if Congress votes "no."
An earlier statement by Syria's foreign minister Walid al-Moallem about Moscow’s proposal -- in which he expressed concern for "the security of our country" -- appeared to mark the Syrian government’s first official acknowledgment that it possesses chemical weapons.
Moallem’s statement came just hours after Secretary of State John Kerry said that Assad could resolve the crisis by surrendering control of "every single bit" of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week. Though Kerry himself expressed doubt that Syria would actually follow through.
State Department officials had said earlier that they would give the proposal a "hard look" -- though with "serious skepticism," said State spokeswoman Marie Harf, who added that Syria had consistently refused to destroy its chemical weapons in the past.
Syrian officials did not offer a time frame for taking such action or offer any other details. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, however, said he expected a quick, positive response from Damascus.
"If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus," Lavrov said. "We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons."
The developments come as Congress began debate on authorizing air strikes in Syria, which has been mired in a civil war for two-and-a-half years.
Kerry told Lavrov on Monday that his comments about Syria avoiding a military strike if it turned over control of its chemical weapons were rhetorical and not meant to be a proposal, adding that the U.S. would not "play games," but would take a look at a proposal if it was serious, Reuters reported.
In a speech delivered from the White House, following a meeting with Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton credited Kerry and Russia's government with floating the proposal, saying that such a move would be an "important step."
Obama and his administration have accused Assad's government of using chemical weapons against civilians outside the country's capital Damascus last month. U.S. estimates put the death toll at more than 1,400 – a figure that includes more than 400 children. More than 100,000 people in total have been killed in the civil war since March 2011.
Meanwhile White House national security adviser Susan Rice said any U.S. military action in Syria "would not be another war." Rice, speaking at the New America Foundation think tank Monday, said the Obama administration and allies have exhausted other measures to stop Syria's use of weapons.
War-weary public, Congress
Congress began debate on authorizing military strikes against Syria Monday after returning from a month-long August recess. The debate comes amid poll numbers that show more than 60 percent of Americans are against U.S.-led strikes in Syria.
The Obama administration has furiously lobbied lawmakers and a war-weary public in a struggle to gain support for a retaliatory military strike against Syria, blamed for a deadly chemical weapons attack last month.
"I will vote 'no' because of too much uncertainly about what comes next," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. "After Step A, what will be steps B, C, D and E?" he added, reflecting concerns that even the limited action Obama was contemplating could lead to a wider war.
But not all lawmakers are against Obama.
"Today, many Americans say that these atrocities are none of our business, that they're not our concern," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said of Assad's alleged gassing of civilians on Aug. 21. "I disagree. Any time the powerful turn such weapons of terror and destruction against the powerless, it is our business."
Opposition to the United States conducting airstrikes in Syria has skyrocketed, according to a new poll conducted by USA Today and the Pew Research Center.
According to the study, 64 percent of Americans do not support a military airstrike in Syria.
The poll comes one day before Obama is scheduled to address the nation about the potential airstrike.
Obama, for his part, tried to make the case that responding to what happened in Syria represented a "long-term national security interest."
"I believe I can make a very strong case to Congress, as well as the American people, about why we can't leave our children a world in which other children are being subjected to nerve gas, and that it is in our interest if we can take a limited step that has a – makes a meaningful difference, it's worth it for us to do that," he told PBS's Newshour.
Al Jazeera and wire services
Russia appeals to Syria to hand over weapons arsenal to international community as Congress debates US strike
President Obama says Russia's proposal on Syria was a "potentially positive development."
President Barack Obama told ABC News Monday that any proposed strike against Syria would "absolutely" be put on hold if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad agreed to turn over chemical weapons that the United States and its allies have accused him of using during an attack near Damascus last month that left more than 1,400 people dead.
Confronted by the threat of U.S. air strikes, Syria on Monday welcomed the idea -- put forth by its close ally Russia -- of turning over all of its chemical weapons to the control of the international community. The weapons would then be destroyed, according to Moscow’s proposal.
While Obama called Syria’s response "a potentially positive development," he added that it would need to be taken "with a grain of salt" while speaking to NBC News.
"We are going to run this to ground," Obama told NBC News. "John Kerry will be talking to his Russian counterpart. We're going to make sure that we see how serious these proposals are."
With the discussion about Syria's chemical-weapons stockpile taking center stage, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., delayed a procedural vote on authorizing strikes against Syria that was scheduled for Wednesday. It's unclear when the vote will take place.
Obama, meanwhile, conceded that he may lose his campaign in Congress for authorization. "I wouldn't say I'm confident" of the outcome, he said, adding, "I haven't decided" on a next step if Congress votes "no."
An earlier statement by Syria's foreign minister Walid al-Moallem about Moscow’s proposal -- in which he expressed concern for "the security of our country" -- appeared to mark the Syrian government’s first official acknowledgment that it possesses chemical weapons.
Moallem’s statement came just hours after Secretary of State John Kerry said that Assad could resolve the crisis by surrendering control of "every single bit" of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week. Though Kerry himself expressed doubt that Syria would actually follow through.
State Department officials had said earlier that they would give the proposal a "hard look" -- though with "serious skepticism," said State spokeswoman Marie Harf, who added that Syria had consistently refused to destroy its chemical weapons in the past.
Syrian officials did not offer a time frame for taking such action or offer any other details. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, however, said he expected a quick, positive response from Damascus.
"If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus," Lavrov said. "We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons."
The developments come as Congress began debate on authorizing air strikes in Syria, which has been mired in a civil war for two-and-a-half years.
Kerry told Lavrov on Monday that his comments about Syria avoiding a military strike if it turned over control of its chemical weapons were rhetorical and not meant to be a proposal, adding that the U.S. would not "play games," but would take a look at a proposal if it was serious, Reuters reported.
In a speech delivered from the White House, following a meeting with Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton credited Kerry and Russia's government with floating the proposal, saying that such a move would be an "important step."
Obama and his administration have accused Assad's government of using chemical weapons against civilians outside the country's capital Damascus last month. U.S. estimates put the death toll at more than 1,400 – a figure that includes more than 400 children. More than 100,000 people in total have been killed in the civil war since March 2011.
Meanwhile White House national security adviser Susan Rice said any U.S. military action in Syria "would not be another war." Rice, speaking at the New America Foundation think tank Monday, said the Obama administration and allies have exhausted other measures to stop Syria's use of weapons.
War-weary public, Congress
Congress began debate on authorizing military strikes against Syria Monday after returning from a month-long August recess. The debate comes amid poll numbers that show more than 60 percent of Americans are against U.S.-led strikes in Syria.
The Obama administration has furiously lobbied lawmakers and a war-weary public in a struggle to gain support for a retaliatory military strike against Syria, blamed for a deadly chemical weapons attack last month.
"I will vote 'no' because of too much uncertainly about what comes next," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. "After Step A, what will be steps B, C, D and E?" he added, reflecting concerns that even the limited action Obama was contemplating could lead to a wider war.
But not all lawmakers are against Obama.
"Today, many Americans say that these atrocities are none of our business, that they're not our concern," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said of Assad's alleged gassing of civilians on Aug. 21. "I disagree. Any time the powerful turn such weapons of terror and destruction against the powerless, it is our business."
Opposition to the United States conducting airstrikes in Syria has skyrocketed, according to a new poll conducted by USA Today and the Pew Research Center.
According to the study, 64 percent of Americans do not support a military airstrike in Syria.
The poll comes one day before Obama is scheduled to address the nation about the potential airstrike.
Obama, for his part, tried to make the case that responding to what happened in Syria represented a "long-term national security interest."
"I believe I can make a very strong case to Congress, as well as the American people, about why we can't leave our children a world in which other children are being subjected to nerve gas, and that it is in our interest if we can take a limited step that has a – makes a meaningful difference, it's worth it for us to do that," he told PBS's Newshour.
Al Jazeera and wire services
Okay this is how it works, Russia was not going to abandon Syria regardless of any military option America was going to use and the same went for Iran too a major power in the Persian Gulf.
Syria never used chemical weapons from the beginning it was inspired by Israel, Saudia Arabia, and Qatar, Turkey as a minor player because they wanted to weaken Russian influence in Syria to export natural gas through pipelines to the huge natural gas market of Europe...
This is another strategic move by Putin and indorsed by the EU community and hence John Kerry stayed in England and the rest of Europe after the G 20 meeting to get the instructions to implement this backdoor deal to the American administration.
All of the grandstanding and propaganda was simply theatrics!!!!!
There is not one Western European nation that will ever have the courage to risk an potential military confrontation with Russia over their vital interests. The Eastern Mediterranean is their strategic interest and they were not going to abandon their naval port in Syria period.
So the American "weasel puppet states" lead by Qatar, Saudia Arabia, and their Jewish brothers Israel joined in league to force Obama's hand to stand-up to Assad with the intention of weakening Russia's geopolitical interests. The Levanthan natural gas field finds by Israel in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea was their goal to run natural gas pipelines developed by Western European nations devoid of Russia's approval and Qatar used Saudia Arabia in unison to fund the rebel insurgency to force Assad to drop the Iranian, Iraqi, Syria natural gas pipeline deal which excluded Qatar, Israel, and of course Turkey. Turkey was mad at Syria because the natural gas pipeline from Egypt stopped at Homs, Syria. The wishes of the Turks was for the pipeline to run to Turkey. Then the current gas pipeline from Iraq to Syria would have been ideal if "Assad" would have brought into their plans which he did not and counter a new deal with Iran with the Iran-Iraq-Syria natural gas pipeline.
So in short order Obama needed a deal to excuse himself from the "Regional gas interests" of his puppet client Gulf States lead by Saudia Arabia and Qatar which hold the largest proven gas reserves behind Russia, Iran, the United States.
It was never Obama's intention to get "knee deep" in the Syrian conflict however the interests of his Gulf Arab allies forced his hand to act. It failed it's desired effect and a full-scale war in the Middle East is not in the interest of Europe, China, India, and the rest of the minor players in Asia.
Remember nearly half of Saudia Arabia crude goes to Asia, the majority of their oil refinery's are in Singapore. Most of their crude is purchased by China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and other Southeast Asian nations.
Saudia Arabia and the rest of the Gulf Arab States exports very little crude to America and this hemisphere. Because we don't need their oil because we have more than they have between America, Canada, Venezuela, and the huge geological finds in Brazil and Argentina in terms of oil and natural gas.
Saudia Arabia is threatened by Russia increasing their natural gas exports to China and potentially Japan, South Korea, and other Asian nations. Thus reducing their market share in the Asia market.
The attempt by Qatar and Saudia Arabia was to ramp-up market share in the European gas and oil market as a counter-balance because they are becoming less relevant in the oil and gas export markets as America is a net crude and gas exporter now.
Now Obama has a choice to diffuse the Syrian crisis by accepting this deal which has been co-signed by Britain, France, Germany, and others in Europe as well as China, India.
Putin and the Russians with their European brothers has shown the Obama administration a open door to walk-out and focus on more important domestic issues within America.
Chemical and Biological weapons have no utility in warfare today because the most important strategic weapons are "Electro-Magnetic Energetic Weapons, Hydrogen, and Nuclear Weapons.
I will also note this will prevent Saudia Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and Israel from using their jihadists rebels in Syria of ever playing this{ chemical weapons} card to draw the US into their geopolitical interest with false-flag attacks on the innocent Syrian people.
Now the Syrian Army has a free hand to take their heads-off using their conventional military weapons. Believe me the rebels are getting their asses kicked real good by the professional Syrian Army.
Once again the Russians show great chessboard skills as well as the Chinese, Iranians and the EU powers too.