Now that Russian President Vladimir Putin has offered Obama a way out of his own trap, it seems like everything will turn out fine. Somehow the UN will miraculously supervise the transition of chemical weapons. Somehow Assad and Putin will try to achieve peace.

You know something is wrong here.

The point is: We must examine these developments with wary eyes because destroying Syria’s chemical weapons is almost impossible, and Putin and Assad cannot be trusted. An early strike was America’s best option, but President Obama let that chance slip away.

According to Mike Kuhlman, chief scientist for national security at Battelle, a company that specializes in chemical weapons disposal in the US, the best way to destroy chemical weapons in Syria is to build facilities and then destroy them inside. That “could take up to a decade”:http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/09/10/theres_almost_no_chance_this_russian_plan_for_syrias_chemical_weapons_will_work, according to Kuhlman.  

Putin made an “unusual gesture “:http://by sending a letter to us, but let’s think again. Why did he want compromise? Because he doesn’t want the US to use force in Middle East, which would embolden our allies and threaten theirs. He and Assad were willing to come to the negotiating table precisely because we threatened to use military force.

Putin asks us to reconsider diplomatic strategies. But remember that his government helped arm Assad’s killing machine, and Assad’s troops cause many more atrocities than the rebels. An August “UN report”:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/12geneva-doc.html shows Assad’s troops had committed eight massacres while rebels committed one.

Putin insists on peace, despite his hypocritical actions. Russia is one of the two countries that vetoed a UN Security Council resolution for peace in Syria, immediately after a massacre in Homs in early 2012.

The country has also supported Syria with IL-76 planes filled with “200 tons of bank notes.”:http://www.propublica.org/article/flight-records-list-russia-sending-tons-of-cash-to-syria
The Russian president wrote, “[T]here is every reason to believe it [poison gas] was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces.” Yet, “all the evidence”:http://www.theguardian.com/world/graphic/2013/sep/03/syria-chemical-weapons-dossiers-compared?CMP=twt_gu from the US, UK, France, and Human Rights Watch says otherwise.

Syria asked to join the “Chemical Weapons Convention “:http://ens-newswire.com/2013/09/16/syria-joins-chemical-weapons-treaty-u-s-russia-reach-deal/on Sept. 14, according to a spokesperson for UN. A surprising development indeed. But I find no reason to be optimistic.

We cannot trust that this new solution in Syria will work. President Obama should have permitted the strike on Syria before consulting Congress or indicating to the international community that he was serious about using force. A strike would have punished Assad, threatened his allies and emboldened the rebels. The US would likely not have suffered casualties. The strike could saved hundreds of lives from chemical weapons. Perhaps a miracle is still possible, but I have my doubts.