Pacte syrien: des effets au-delà des armes chimiques?

Beaucoup d'incertitudes autour de cette entente entre la Russie et les États-Unis. En supposant qu'on puisse mener cette opération à terme, on peut également se questionner sur ses retombées éventuelles. Comment se comporteront la Russie et les États-Unis à l'Égard du conflit en Syrie? La Russie, leader des négociations, continuera-t-elle à armer le régime? Les États-Unis fourniront-ils des armes à l'opposition? Passe-t-on un message à l'Iran?

 "President Vladimir Putin of Russia has undoubtedly elevated his stature in the Middle East with this diplomatic move. But he is now on the hook as he never was before to make sure that Mr. Assad does not use chemical weapons. Mr. Putin has drawn a line at poison gas, but it will be cynical and reprehensible if he continues to supply Mr. Assad with conventional arms, which have killed the vast majority of Syria’s civilian victims.

 President Obama deserves credit for putting a focus on upholding an international ban on chemical weapons and for setting aside military action at this time in favor of a diplomatic deal. The Syria crisis should demonstrate to Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, that Mr. Obama, who has held out the possibility of military action against Iran’s nuclear program, is serious about a negotiated solution. Mr. Obama’s disclosure that he had indirectly exchanged messages with Mr. Rouhani was encouraging.

 There are many uncertainties ahead, including what the administration will do to support the Syrian opposition. Now that Russia and the United States have reached a deal, there’s reason to hope this cooperation will help advance an overall peace settlement for Syria.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/opinion/the-syrian-pact.html?hp