The US-Russian deal to resolve the Syrian chemical weapons crisis following intensive discussions in Geneva was a success in brinkmanship diplomacy. It avoided an anticipated US strike against Syria that would have reshuffled the cards in the crisis. A strike would have also jeopardized an already difficult settlement process, endangering reaching of a solution or making it more complicated.

The deal provides a lesson on the effectiveness of diplomacy and points to how important it is for the two superpowers to work together to reach an understanding on managing and containing the Syrian crisis as a sine qua non for avoiding escalation, which could be costly to everyone’s interests. 

As in any negotiation, here the United States and Russian moved far from their original positions on settling the chemical weapons issue. The United States accepted the proposed road map and the timeline, and Russia agreed to refer the matter to the UN Security Council if Syria engages in foul play, among other things.

The public participation of Lakhdar Brahimi in a trilateral meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was meant to send a message about the firm commitment of the two superpowers to the Geneva process although it remains full of obstacles. It was also to say that the settlement of the chemical weapons issue, despite its strategic importance, is not an end in itself. Rather, it should be a boost to the Geneva approach. In other words, it should be integrated into the process leading to the convening of a Geneva II conference.