President Barack Obama

As President Obama prepared to address the nation on Syria Tuesday evening, his aides were working behind the scenes on a diplomatic solution to the crisis. The administration appears to be entertaining a proposal from Russia to drop a U.S. attack if Syria gives up its chemical weapons. We analyze the president’s speech and get listener reactions.

Indira Lakshmanan, foreign policy correspondent with Bloomberg News
Josh Gerstein, senior White House reporter for Politico


    The Russian proposal is the best thing that could have happened ,it may have averted a terrible war that may have lead to the death of civilians as well as the attack on Syria may have led to regional or even global wars. However the Syrian problem still remain and must be solved as soon as possible otherwise the violence and istability will continue which may spread to the whole region with lot of real bad consequences .A solution which keep Assad in power or remove him must be reached soon.


    I am sure the Russian resolution which may prevent the American attack on Syria is a great defeat to the Neocons and their military industrial complex.

  • Parisa

    I’m skeptical that John Kerry’s comment was so “off the cuff.” These speeches are elaborately choreographed and rarely does someone as experienced as John Kerry just say things that haven’t been thoroughly vetted. The Iranian media is claiming that this proposal was being floated around even before the G-20 summit.
    What are the chances?

    • Chemist150


      I’m convinced that the US want to bomb Syria. Specifically, they want to take out key radar installations obtained from Russia and Iran intended to widen the net that can track stealth. The US is painting themselves in a corner as they make allies dependent on the US power while the “axis” is building individual capabilities (like nuclear subs and good radar) and combining efforts (Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, possibly Brazil). They say they can’t bomb the chemical sites, so what are they going to bomb? They do have an agenda and it’s rarely if ever actually about human rights.

      The US could have offered that but never did. It was off the cuff, period. The question was not given ahead of time and Obama had said they’d exhausted diplomatic attempts but where was that offer? The US got a kick in the pants and are saving face but in the end are likely to say it’s all unprovable that they gave up the whole stockpile like in Iraq and bomb anyway.

      I heard it said that Obama wanted to weaken Assad’s position, reduce his capabilities and boost the rebels which does nothing about the chemical weapons but given that this is a true civil war with internal support to both sides and there is an established government who is not attacking other countries, the US has no right under the UN charter to interfere or chose sides.

  • Ameena Jandali

    Obama initially did call for Assad to step down and called repeatedly for democracy in the Arab world. Why is it ok to continue to kill thousands with conventional weapons? We have seen the same scenario in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo, and every time Russia was either the aggressor or a supporter of the aggressor, and we came in too late. When will we learn?

  • 99to1

    There is ample evidence — far more convincing than anything proffered by the Obama regime — that Syrian rebels have committed multiple chemical attacks including the Ghouta incident of August 21.

    This evidence (accessible on the Internet in the form of
    rebel-produced videos and independent journalist accounts) is being ignored by the mainstream media, and by public radio news, KQED included.

    Example: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack
    By Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh | August 29, 2013

    Example: UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use
    UK Telegraph
    By Damien McElroy and agencies 9:04AM BST 06 May 2013

    “According to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas,” del Ponte, a former war crimes prosecutor, said in an interview
    with Swiss radio late on Sunday.

    Example: Russia presented a 100-page report to the UN in May documenting rebel use of chemical weapons on multiple occasions earlier this spring.

    The refusal on the part of American news agencies to even-handedly report evidence directly countering the unsupported allegations exploited to engage the US in yet another illegal assault on a middle eastern nation–

    — is journalistically indefensible.
    What’s your response, KQED?

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor