Agreement on Syria seen as diplomatic win for Obama

The agreement between the United States and Russia to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons hands President Barack Obama a diplomatic achievement without U.S. armed forces firing a shot.

If the deal survives political and practical hurdles, it could also wind down a drama that has put the Democratic president and his threat to attack Syria at odds with most of the U.S. public and many of his supporters.

After losing the first two weeks of September to the crisis, the Obama administration may now be able to move forward with domestic priorities such as a budget agreement, raising the debt ceiling and nomination of a Federal Reserve chairman, without simultaneously pressing reluctant members of Congress for their support on a vote to authorize use of force.

"The most important political effect of the agreement is to knock the issue down a few pegs on the political agenda," said John Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, Calif.

Obama welcomed the deal as "an important, concrete step toward the goal of moving Syria's chemical weapons under international control," even as he said in a statement that the United States "remains prepared to act" if diplomacy fails.

"The Syria problem appears to be off to the side now," said Steve Elmendorf, a lobbyist and former Democratic congressional aide with close ties to the administration.

"Now they have the time" to nominate a Federal Reserve Board chairman, a post for which former Obama National Economic Council director Lawrence Summers and Fed Vice Chairman Janet Yellen are top candidates, Elmendorf said. "My guess is, they'll do it pretty soon."

Obama plans to speak tomorrow to mark the five-year anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., which helped trigger the financial crisis, and talk about economic gains since then, according to a White House statement.

While critics will portray Obama's maneuvering on Syria as a series of vacillations, the public will see the outcome as an Obama victory, so long as poison gas attacks in Syria end, said Andrew Kohut, founding director of the Pew Research Center in Washington.

"No more chemical attacks would equal achievement," he said. "And vice versa."

"It's the bottom line, not so much how you got there, for typical voters," said Kohut, who has been involved in polling and public opinion research for more than 20 years.

The public is likely to give Obama credit simply because he was able to avert, at least for the time being, U.S. military involvement, he said.

"For now, the agreement strengthens Obama, with a public opposed to force," Kohut said.

Even with Syria's cooperation, it will be difficult to find, secure and destroy the country's chemical weapons in the middle of a civil war that has killed more than 100,000 people in the past 2 1/2 years.

The Pentagon issued a statement saying U.S. forces remain poised to attack Syria because "the credible threat of military force has been key to driving diplomatic progress."

"The problem remains to what degree will the Assad regime carry it out and how will it be implemented," Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said in an email.

Fred Hof, who last year served as Obama's ambassador-at-large on the Syria crisis, described President Bashar Assad's regime as "the essence of untrustworthiness." Many in Washington also doubted Assad's fractured opposition, which includes backers of al-Qaida.

Administration officials have stressed that the agreement, and Russia's active role, happened only because of Obama's threat to use military force against Syria. They said that, had Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted the Assad regime to give up its chemical weapons, the Russian leader could have done so six months or a year ago.

Yet the episode could damage public perceptions of Obama's handling of foreign affairs, said David Gergen, a communications adviser to four Republican and Democratic presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

The president's most visible actions in foreign affairs so far have been the winding down of unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

In contrast, Obama's movement, from condemnation of the Aug. 21 alleged poison gas attack to a surprise announcement that he would seek congressional approval before a military strike, and then his difficulty securing support among lawmakers, provides fodder for critics of his leadership, Gergen said.

"There's a narrative out there in contrast to bin Laden, which was stunningly well-handled, that this was amateurish," Gergen said. "That will continue to be a reference point in conversations."