But the Sunni Arab states might not play along as they want Assad gone; to weaken Iran and put a check on Hezbollah. Problem is, despite sharing a common stance in wanting Assad gone, the West and its 'allies' in the Gulf have slightly different reasons for wanting Assad gone and have different ideas as to what they want to achieve in a post-Assad Syria.
If this evidence is true, it is highly unlikely Assad could have used chemical weapons at the exactly same place and time. And it does make little sense for him to use the chemical weapons, given that he is winning the war now.
True. In any case, IMO any such demand by Assad will be rejected outright by Washington. IF the CIA can provide reasonable assurance that weapons are reaching the intended recipients, then the pace of shipments may even be increased.
Maybe. For myself, the UN official report will hopefully shed some light, being based on actual physical evidence and presumably signals intercepts and other intelligence from the US and other sources.
If past history is anything to go by, that's a very big 'if' ......
Large quantities of Syrian military hardware fell into rebel hands. There's pictures of rebels operating SAMs (namely the OSA) and tanks (a T-55 in at least one case). Also many Syrian military officers defected to the rebels. It's certainly not impossible for the rebels to use captured Syrian ballistic missiles. And remember "ballistic missiles" simply means a rocket flying a ballistic trajectory. Some of the surface to surface missiles were from an ancient Soviet MLRS (predating the BM-21 Grad) namely this one: BM-14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Systems of this kind are very simple to operate, and have in the past been used by insurgents, never mind an actual rebel army. There's several possibilities including the munitions being manufactured by the rebels, or them capturing Syrian military chemical munitions.
The rebels have plenty of captured Syrian surface-to-surface missiles, plus homemade missiles, plus imports provided to or purchased by them.
The prevailing wisdom is one thing, but when your own life is on the line it's a whole other. There was a lot of commentary questioning the effectiveness of airstrikes against Gaddafi too, but he ended up murdered on camera.
Yes, Assad was certainly motivated by the Russians. What's interesting with the UN report and it's ambiguity is it likely makes a deal for exile more realistic. No doubt Assad could still be prosecuted for other crimes against humanity.
In parallel with his efforts to turn the tide on the battlefied, he desperately needs Russian diplomatic support. The Russians might have made it clear to him, that they need Assad to make a major comprise to avert a strike; and that if he didn't make a comprise with the 'West' that Russia might downgrade its support for him. No doubt the Russian will also have told him that apart from continuing to support him and using its veto, there's isn't much more Russia can do to help him. Officially, it has been stated that strikes are intended to ''degrade'' the ability of the Syrians government to deliver chemicals, but ''un-officially'', strikes can also be easily used by Uncle Sam and France to degrade the ability of the Syrian government to conduct operations against its enemies - there's a very, very thin line separating the two.
The problem is that Congress also heard the prevailing wisdom and was demanding that The Administration show them why they should approve an ineffective gesture to save Obama’s international reputation. Because The Administration couldn’t, the Pentagon was asked for much stronger strike alternatives to convince Congress to give approval for an action against Syria. If Congress did approve a strike against Syria it would be almost impossible for Obama not to carry through in the current political environment.
Would it be correct to asuume that apart from having chemical tip Scuds and Frogs, artillery shells and the ability to use aircraft, that Assad may also be able to deliver chemicals using his Grads?
That's an interesting idea, but what country would want to put even a small force into the middle of a very ugly civil war? Lebanon doesn't seem that far from being sucked into this conflict too and if that happens things will get much worse.
Honestly I don't know who would be willing to. But there's quite a few countries that can. If the desire was there, I don't think it would that hard to do. Assad would have little reason to attack such a force, in fact given his fear of intervention, he'd be likely to make sure nothing happens even by accident. On the other hand the rebels are far too weak and too disorganized to try attacking a professional military, even if the force in question isn't that large, and would similarly lack motivation.