Interestingly now in the Middle East, Russia is playing a protective role with regard to its client, the al-Assad regime in Syria, in a mirror-image of the US protection of Zionist-Likud Israel, from the threat of UN Security Council resolutions and international interventions. Will China soon follow the US and now Russian examples and express its power by finding a wayward foreign pet to protect from world opprobrium? Will the Obama Administration or any of its successors follow the example of that apt student of American foreign policy, Vladimir Putin, and lead its Israeli client to nuclear and chemical and biological weapons disarmament under the protective cover of American military might and UN Security Council veto power?
It is so easy to imagine a more wonderful world.
There are many questions about U.S., Russian, Iranian, Israeli, Arab League, European, and world (UN General Assembly) competitive interests in Syria, and preferences regarding the outcome of the Syrian Civil War. I kept my focus narrow (chemical disarmament) in my article because I am not able to give a “complete theory” about all the international complications related to the Syrian Civil War (the “greater” game if you will).
I do believe the fear about chemical weapons spreading is real and widespread, which is why “antagonists” like the U.S. and Russia can so readily agree (3 days!) on a process to quickly remove them from Syria (at least the government stockpile, at first).
Though limited in scope, the mere fact of such new cooperation — instead of a U.S.-led air war in Syria — is clearly a positive development. This positive development gives a little bit of encouragement to the hopeful fantasy that maybe the U.S., Russia, and Iran (the new Iranian government and Obama have exchanged letters, Obama disclosed on TV), and others, might move beyond just cooperating on Syrian chemical disarmament, to negotiating rather than shooting out their differences on Syria, and the region.
My purpose in writing about the Syrian Civil War is to help make this last suggestion explicit (chemical disarmament as the nucleus of wider political settlements). I realize my opinion does not go very far, but even so I have the opportunity, and the effort seems worthwhile. Since it is very rare for people (especially “important” ones) to acknowledge the sources of “their” ideas, we really can never know if some of our suggestions in our little corner of the blogosphere have had useful impact or not. But, unless they are available publicly, there is no chance. So we send them off, like messages in bottles cast out to sea. Who knows? Even if we never see it, maybe somebody will get rescued as a result.
Chemical Defanging of the Syrian Civil War Begins
22 September 2013
http://www.swans.com/library/art19/mgarci71.html
These developments were anticipated by suggestions made 4 months ago in an article linked from here:
https://manuelgarciajr.com/2013/05/15/sarin-in-syria/
manuelgarciajr 
U.N. Deal on Syrian Arms Is Milestone After Years of Inertia
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: September 26, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/world/middleeast/security-council-agrees-on-resolution-to-rid-syria-of-chemical-arms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
UNITED NATIONS — The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have agreed on a resolution that will require Syria to give up its chemical weapons… The agreement…is a compromise among the United States, its allies and Russia about how to enforce the resolution, which would eliminate Syria’s chemical arms program…, when approved by the 15 members of the Security Council [it] amount to the most significant international diplomatic initiative of the Syrian civil war. It would also be a remarkable turn for President Obama, who had been pushing for a military strike on Syria just a few weeks ago before accepting a Russian proposal to have Syria give up its chemical arsenal.
The diplomatic breakthrough on Syria came as Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said progress had been made toward a resolution of the nuclear dispute between his country and the West, suggesting it could happen in a year. Mr. Zarif spoke optimistically after emerging from what he called a “very substantive, businesslike” meeting at the United Nations with representatives of the big powers. He also met face to face with Secretary of State John Kerry in one of the highest-level discussions between the estranged countries in years.
[see complete article, at web site noted]