Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at a 2009 news conference. (DIETER NAGL/AFP/Getty Images) 
 
 Few people depress me these days like Michael Doran. A Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, Doran has been a leading advocate among thoughtful foreign policy analysts for a more aggressive U.S. intervention to end the conflict in Syria. Agree or disagree with that policy (I'm not sure I do, personally), it's left him especially skeptical of the Obama administration's push for limited strikes against Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons. 
 
 When Russia seized on U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's offhand suggestion that Syria could avoid U.S. strikes by giving up its chemical weapons, I reacted, like many, with highly cautious optimism that this could offer a small but significant reprieve for Syrians and success for Obama. But Doran had a very different take: that this is a dishonest ploy by Russia and Syria that boxes in the Unites States and, more importantly, makes any relief for Syria's civil war far less likely. 
 
 Doran made his case against the plan on Twitter, in the form of eight "truths about our new policy of working with Putin" to secure Syrian chemical weapons. Even if you think that Obama should pursue Russia's proposal, Doran raises some important concerns. Key quote: "Obama now needs Assad and Putin. He is their partner in this sham process." Here are his eight hard truths, followed by a short interview I conducted with Doran via e-mail to elaborate on some of his points. 
 
 #1 | Assad will never under any condition truly relinquish his CW. He is a proven liar on issues such as this. — Mike Doran (@Doranimated) September 10, 2013 
 
 #2 | US cannot coerce Assad, b/c for all intents & purposes BHO lost the vote in Congress, even though it never took place. — Mike Doran (@Doranimated) September 10, 2013 
 
 #3 | Putin, recognizing that Obama had boxed himself in, provided him with an excuse to leave the battlefield w/honor. — Mike Doran (@Doranimated) September 10, 2013 
 
 #4| Obama can claim that he "coerced" Assad to give up CW & that he revitalized US deterrent w/out firing a shot. — Mike Doran (@Doranimated) September 10, 2013 
 
 #5| But Obama now NEEDS Assad & Putin. He is their partner in this sham process. — Mike Doran (@Doranimated) September 10, 2013 
 
 #6| When Assad cheats, Obama will make excuses. Otherwise he'd have to do something about it - which he can't do, b/c he lost the vote. — Mike Doran (@Doranimated) September 10, 2013 
 
 #7| A year ago, we were calling on Assad to step down, but now he is our partner, together w/Putin, in a Potemkin disarmament effort. — Mike Doran (@Doranimated) September 10, 2013 
 
 #8| Remember the fiasco, in the 1990s, of using UN to search for Iraq WMD while Russia obstructed. We willingly jumped into that again! — Mike Doran (@Doranimated) September 10, 2013 
 
 WorldViews: Is Obama completely boxed in by Congress and Putin? Does he have any real option now other than what Lavrov proposed? 
 
 Michael Doran: Having dealt himself the hand of working with Russia and Syria, Obama must play it out. But he could play it aggressively, by which I mean making very serious demands of compliance up front, as Kerry did in demanding that Assad hand over his chemical weapons in one week. Or, for example, Obama could demand that Assad sign the international convention banning chemical weapons tomorrow. And that Assad give a full listing of all chemical weapons sites within days and allow U.N. monitors to immediately install monitoring devices there. This would be a way of putting the Russians and the Syrians to the test quickly, and perhaps of dispensing with this charade more quickly. 
 
 But in order to take this approach, Obama would have to be willing to answer the next question, which is, "Then what?" His Syria policy has been incoherent and he would have to do the hard work of developing one that made sense, which to my mind is the kind of thing that Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are advocating -- gathering an international coalition to build up the Free Syrian Army as an alternative to both al-Qaeda and the Assad regime. This would be a major undertaking. It need not require American boots on the ground, but it would take American leadership, time and effort. Obama's preference from the outset has appeared to be avoiding Syria entirely. 
 
 WV: Kerry's comments obviously opened the door for all of this. Do you think the administration is secretly grateful for the exit he gave them? 
 
 MD: Yes. The president has never wanted to take any action in Syria. His initial "red line" comment, made in August 2012, was an off-the-cuff remark, not a statement of considered policy. The first time he came under pressure to honor it, last April, the administration came out and said that it was arming the opposition. The arms never arrived. This time around he has displayed a similar reluctance. So President Obama is likely grateful to have found a diplomatic path, even if it is a sham. But he is not alone. Many in Congress are relieved. The vote, especially in the House, was going to be a catastrophic failure for the president, and many members did not want to go through with it. They are happy to avoid the whole thing. 
 
 WV: Tell me more about the lessons of the U.N. in Iraq in the 1990s -- keeping in mind that when most people hear the words "Iraq" and "WMDs" they think of a 2002-2003 series of events that went very differently. 
 
 MD: Bear in mind that we had just dealt Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein a catastrophic military defeat in Kuwait. We had no-fly zones in the north and the south of the country. We were, that is to say, putting him under a lot of direct military pressure -- the kind of leverage that is totally absent from our diplomacy with Syria today. Also bear in mind that Saddam agreed to give up his weapons of mass destruction as a result of his defeat. 
 
 Back in the 1990s, we had an agreement, we had leverage, and we had a U.N. team that went around Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction. But still, Saddam impeded the monitors. He lied and cheated. He played a shell game -- moving stuff out the back door of warehouses while the inspectors were pounding on the front door to come in. All the while, in the United Nations, the Russians played lawyer for the defendant. 
 
 You only need to look at the way the Russians have dealt with the chemical weapons issue in Syria to get a taste of what awaits. The intel services of Britain, France, Israel and the United States -- the best intel services in the world -- assess that Assad likely used chemical weapons against the rebels. Russia says no. It says the evidence is lacking. It demands more proof. What awaits us right now is a lengthy three-way negotiation between Washington, Moscow and Damascus over the terms of the inspections. That process alone will likely last weeks, perhaps longer. It wouldn't surprise me if, weeks from now, President Obama were attending the United Nations General Assembly while still holding meetings about a U.N. resolution to compel Assad to give up his chemical weapons. 
 
 I guarantee you that as we speak, Assad's chemical weapons team is frantically pouring bottles of Chanel No. 5, which Hezbollah stole from Lebanon, into missile shells that it will deliver to the U.N. in an elaborate demonstration of compliance with the agreement. We will take one whiff, call it perfume, and cry foul. The Russians will say that the evidence is not conclusive, a U.N. team should run tests. It will have loyal Russian scientists on the testing team, because it will have had a hand in writing the resolution that set up the inspections. The Russian scientists will say that it is not perfume but, rather, deracinated ricin, which has the qualities of Chanel No. 5. This game will eat up months and months and, meanwhile, Assad will have a free hand in slaughtering people. 
 
 WV: Let's take the pessimistic view that Obama now has no choice but to spend months chasing Russian and Syrian promises that will never materialize. Is there any silver lining to this scenario? Maybe, in six months, it will be easier to rally international support? 
 
 MD: President Obama has zigged and zagged so many times in this "crisis" that he has made it impossible to rally international support. If there has been a constant in his Syria policy it has been a concern with domestic policy, not with the position of allies. Consider the position of Francois Hollande, who has been our most reliable partner in the effort to get tougher with Assad. Hollande stood by Obama when Cameron dropped away -- although French public opinion was also wary of a Syria adventure. Today Hollande is being mocked on French satirical programs as Obama's poodle. Will Hollande ever willingly take another political hit in defense of a line that Obama set? 
 
 WV: Let's take the optimistic view that Russia and Syria are sincere -- implausible as it may be -- and Assad gives up his chemical weapons. Would there be any downside to that seemingly best-case scenario? 
 
 MD: First of all, "sincere" and "Assad regime" are not words that any adult with any direct experience with this phenomenon would use in the same sentence. But, working with your thought experiment, yes there is a downside to the scenario. As I mentioned in the tweets, we are now the partners of those powers. What happened to President Obama's other policy of "Assad must step aside"? When we rush to embrace rivals and enemies, what signal does that send, around the Middle East, about our resolve and reliability? Around the world? If you are, say, South Korea today, watching what is happening, this behavior might make you very nervous. There are a lot of jittery allies today in many places where there are very serious stakes at risk. 
 
 (Max here again: I would quibble on North Korea. It's hard to imagine that North Korea would be stupid enough to use chemical weapons against South Korea. North Korea cultivates weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent and as a distraction from its other bad behavior. Despite its rhetoric, it fears another open war with the United States and is extremely careful to avoid anything that might spark it, of which deploying chemical weapons against South Korea is very high on the list. Still, North Korea is one of the world's worst weapons proliferators; it's not unforeseeable that the country could become more willing to ship its chemical weapons abroad.) ||||| Secretary of State John Kerry may not have expected his casual suggestion that Syria avert American military action by giving up its chemical weapons to be taken seriously. But it may have created a diplomatic way out for President Obama, who has insisted that a military strike is the only way to respond after concluding that the Syrian government used poison gas in its civil war. 
 
 Russia, Syria’s arms supplier and ally, immediately embraced Mr. Kerry’s suggestion on Monday and proposed that President Bashar al-Assad do exactly that. “If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in the country will prevent attacks, then we will immediately begin work with Damascus,” Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister said. “And we call on the Syrian leadership to not only agree to setting the chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also to their subsequent destruction.” 
 
 Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said Syria welcomed the proposal. The swift endorsement of the idea by the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, and Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, show how eager the world is to avoid a military showdown when removing the chemical weapons might be a realistic option. Mr. Obama called the proposal “a potentially positive development.” White House officials said it was worth taking a “hard look” at. 
 
 The Obama administration has good reason to be skeptical of any promises made by the Assad regime or its Russian backers. Mr. Assad, who has denied using chemical weapons, could begin by actually acknowledging that he has the weapons, which Western nations say amount to hundreds of tons of nerve gas and blister agents. 
 
 Nonetheless, Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry should pursue this possible solution. The removal and destruction of stockpiles of weapons would ensure greater safety for the Syrian people. And it would have longer lasting deterrent effects than the limited strikes Mr. Obama wants to deliver, without the likelihood of more civilian casualties. 
 
 To have any measure of credibility, Mr. Assad will need to allow monitors into the country immediately. That would be a gesture to the world that his government will abide by international laws against chemical weapons use. The Russians will have to work closely with the United States and the United Nations to create a plan to catalog and verify Syria’s chemical weapons and set forth a specific timetable for the removal and destruction of those weapons under international auspices. 
 
 Russia and the United States should propose a formal resolution by the United Nations Security Council — of which both are members — to condemn the use of chemical weapons in Syria, support this plan and put its full authority behind carrying it out, as well as establish consequences if Syria reneged. It would be impossible to destroy the entire stockpile instantly, but that task must be done with care and speed because those weapons cannot be allowed to fall into other murderous hands in the conflict. 
 
 Mr. Obama, who is expected to speak to the nation on Tuesday night, spent the past week making the case for a limited strike, but he has won little support for his plan internationally, in Congress or with the American public. 
 
 The diplomatic proposal creates at least a pause in the action. It could mean that the United States would not have to go it alone in standing firm against the Syrian regime. And it could open up a broader channel to a political settlement between Mr. Assad and the rebels — the only practical way to end this war. It could also be a boon for Mr. Obama, personally, because he could take credit for pushing Syria and Russia into making this move. ||||| Story highlights U.N.-Arab League calls the Kerry, Lavrov talks "extremely important" 
 
 A Russian spokesman says U.S. is "unaccustomed" to competition 
 
 Official: Two sides are "closer to agreement" on scope of Syria's chemical weapons 
 
 Even as they trade barbs publicly -- and even as artillery shells and accusations continue to fly in Syria -- the United States and Russia could take solace Friday in at least one respect: They are still talking. 
 
 Discussions between the two in Geneva -- centered around Moscow's proposal to have Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government hand over its chemical weapons stockpile -- were supposed to end Friday. They continued through the night and were extended into Saturday for a reason, U.S. officials said. 
 
 "If there was no opening, we wouldn't still be here," a senior State Department official said. 
 
 An Obama administration official said separately that "we are coming closer to agreement on the scope of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile." 
 
 And even before the Geneva talks' extension was announced, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov signaled their intent to meet again: on September 24 in New York on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly. 
 
 The prospect of yet another round of negotiations in the next few weeks pointed to a potentially bigger endgame for the United States and Russia in the hastily arranged meeting they began on Thursday in the Swiss city. 
 
 That's not to say all of the many outstanding issues -- on Syria's chemical weapons and much more -- have been resolved. 
 
 Senior U.S. administration officials told reporters on condition of not being identified the main sticking point was what consequences al-Assad and his government should face. 
 
 These officials have no expectations Russia would agree to any U.N. resolution that included authorization for possible military force against Syria. The United States, therefore, will not insist it be included. 
 
 That runs counter to Obama's call for the international community to take action, including a potential military strike, for what the United States and allies call a chemical weapons attack by al-Assad's forces last month outside Syria's capital that they say killed more than 1,400 people. 
 
 Obama has threatened to act alone, if necessary, and his administration credits that threat with Russia's surprise proposal last week to have Syria turn over its chemical weapons arsenal to international control. 
 
 Outside of the United Nations, however, administration officials insisted they would not take the military threat off the table. 
 
 A senior defense official said there has been "no change" in the military's planning or readiness levels and commanders have not been instructed to change their "posture" in any way. 
 
 Chemical weapons report expected Monday 
 
 The United Nations -- and especially its Security Council, including permanent members the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain -- could play a key role in the international community's response to Syria. And a report by its inspectors looking into an August 21 chemical weapons attack outside Damascus could be pivotal in guiding where countries come down on the issue. 
 
 U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-mooon is expected to present the report to the Security Council at 11 a.m. Monday, three diplomatic sources said. Ban said Friday that he believes it "will be an overwhelming report that chemical weapons were used." 
 
 The big questions are by whom and, if that's settled, what the world should do about it. 
 
 Al-Assad and other Syrian officials have vehemently denied their forces were responsible, despite assertions by Obama and others to the contrary. 
 
 Russia has stood by its longtime ally Syria, challenging the validity of the U.S. claims. At the same time, and as the threat of U.S.-led strikes loomed, Moscow raised its proposal on Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles and working through the U.N. -- this after, time and again, blocking U.N. action involving Syria. 
 
 Al-Assad quickly agreed, leading to the talks between Kerry and Lavrov in Geneva that began Thursday. Syria also told the United Nations on Thursday that it has sent the paperwork for joining the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans such armaments. 
 
 The Syrian submission was being reviewed by U.N. lawyers. If deemed sufficient, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon would register it and Syria would officially be a member state in the convention. 
 
 U.N. envoy: U.S.-Russia talks 'extremely important' 
 
 At first, the Geneva talks were about Russia's proposal Monday for Syria to give up control of its chemical weapons, which the United States had demanded in order for Obama to drop plans to launch military strikes. 
 
 Now the stakes have gotten higher, with Kerry telling reporters that progress in the broader peace process will largely depend on whether the current Geneva negotiations on Syria's chemical weapons succeed. 
 
 A communique from last year's Syrian peace talks attended by all parties called for a ceasefire and establishing a fully inclusive transitional government to write a new constitution. 
 
 That went nowhere, however. In fact, the U.N. estimates more than 100,000 people have been killed since the civil war began in 2011, in addition to more than 2 million becoming refugees and over 4 million being displaced within Syria. 
 
 Lakhdar Brahimi, the joint U.N.-Arab League envoy on Syria, expressed fresh hopes Friday that a peaceful, political solution to end the war could be reached. Kerry and Lavrov's talks were a big reason for his optimism, with Brahimi calling them "extremely important" -- not regarding chemical weapons, but for the peace process generally. 
 
 'A criminal act' 
 
 To keep up pressure on al-Assad, Obama on Friday described last month's chemical weapons attack a "criminal" act. Ban weighed in as well, saying the Syrian leader "has committed many crimes against humanity, and therefore I am sure there will be surely a process of accountability when everything is over." 
 
 U.S. officials say the mere existence of talks with Russia on the matter is progress, noting that such a prospect would not have been considered just a week ago due to Moscow's repeated efforts to block U.N. action against Syria. 
 
 Speaking to reporters Friday after he and Lavrov met with Brahimi, Kerry called the talks about Syria's chemical weapons "constructive." 
 
 "We are working hard to find common ground to be able to make that happen. And we discussed some of the homework that we both need to do," Kerry said. 
 
 Lavrov said Russia had promoted a peaceful solution to Syria's civil war, adding that the communique agreed to in last year's first round of peace talks involving all the parties had been "basically abandoned." 
 
 President Barack Obama addressed the nation about Syria on Tuesday. 
 
 On chemical weapons, Lavrov said international officials had to work together "to design a road which would make sure that this issue is resolved quickly, professionally, as soon as practical." 
 
 Getting chemical weapons fraught with challenges 
 
 Even if all parties agree, weapons experts say the already major challenge of putting Syria's chemical stockpile under international control would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, amid an active civil war. 
 
 Syria this week acknowledged that it possesses chemical weapons and wants to join the global convention that bans them. 
 
 CNN's Nick Paton Walsh reports that the convention would become legally binding on Syria 30 days after it formally joins, meaning al-Assad's government would have to permit inspections at that time. 
 
 After another 30 days -- which would be 60 days from when it formally joined the convention -- Syria would have to declare its chemical weapons stockpiles. 
 
 On Thursday, al-Assad noted that joining the convention would give Syria the standard 30 days from compliance to declare its stockpiles, but Kerry responded by expressing concern about that long a time period, saying "we believe there is nothing standard about this process." 
 
 At the State Department on Friday, spokeswoman Marie Harf said that "verifying, accounting for securing and destroying a large stockpile of chemical weapons takes time," adding that "it's very difficult to do, particularly in an active war zone." 
 
 "If we keep forward momentum, if we believe there's a credible and verifiable plan on the table to do just that, we'll keep moving forward with that process, because resolving this issue diplomatically is certainly preferable to resolving it or to dealing with it with military action," Harf said. 
 
 Political hurdles 
 
 Obama had tried to put together a NATO coalition to attack Syria, but the British Parliament voted against taking part, denying him a normally reliable ally. Other allies said they wanted U.N. authorization in the form of a Security Council resolution before they would join a coalition. 
 
 The president then asked Congress to authorize a military response in Syria but appeared in danger of losing that vote until the Russian proposal Monday provided a diplomatic opening. 
 
 In a speech to the nation Tuesday night, Obama made moral and strategic arguments for taking action on Syria, challenging Congress and the American public to look at video footage of victims of the chemical attack. 
 
 Russian President Vladimir Putin responded with an op-ed posted Wednesday night on the New York Times' website, saying "there is every reason to believe" Syrian troops weren't responsible, while challenging Washington and the idea of "American exceptionalism." 
 
 His remarks provoked a strong reaction in the United States, with some U.S. politicians deeming them insulting and sickening. But rather than step back, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov fired back by claiming Washington was "unaccustomed (to) competition" in global matters and has "grown too used to patting everyone on the back patronizingly." 
 
 Other questions loom in Washington. 
 
 One has to do with the Syrian opposition, some of whom are already receiving U.S.-funded weapons and ammunition, according to a U.S. official. Yet there's some questions about the mix of moderates and Islamist extremists among the rebels, including some who are affiliated with al Qaeda. 
 
 Then there's the issue of Syria's chemical weapons themselves, and whether it's possible to track all of them down. 
 
 Some U.S. intelligence analysts believe it's known where most of Syria's stockpile is stored, according to two U.S. officials familiar with internal discussions. But others say the United States might not be able to verify the location of up to 50% of them.
– Might John Kerry's offhand comment lead to a genuine resolution of the Syrian mess? Some of the opinions: It's a 'sham': That's the view of Michael Doran of the Brookings Institution as quoted in the Washington Post. "This is a dishonest ploy by Russia and Syria that boxes in the Unites States and, more importantly, makes any relief for Syria’s civil war far less likely," writes Max Fisher, summing up Doran's view. The worst part is that President Obama must now rely on Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad. "He is their partner in this sham process," says Doran. Later, he asks: "When we rush to embrace rivals and enemies, what signal does that send, around the Middle East, about our resolve and reliability?" Worth pursuing: Be skeptical, yes, but the US "should pursue this potential solution," write the editors at the New York Times. Done right—which means requiring Assad to allow monitors in immediately—this "could mean that the United States would not have to go it alone in standing firm against the Syrian regime. And it could open up a broader channel to a political settlement between Mr. Assad and the rebels—the only practical way to end this war." Desperate times: "It is a long-shot proposal started perhaps by accident, promoted by parties who have regularly lied, and cautiously embraced by a US administration whose policies in Syria have been incoherent by any measure," writes David Rothkopf at CNN. "Regardless of whether it amounts to anything or not, it speaks volumes about how bad our options are." Hail Putin: It's Putin, not Obama, who deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, writes KT McFarland at Fox News, who expects Obama to take full credit for the proposal when he speaks tonight. "It turns out that leading from behind left a big opening up front. Putin stepped right in. And Obama still hasn't figured it out."