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.
– 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."