Call Russia’s bluff

Russia’s proposal to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons has been derided as cynical, unworkable or, at best, a stalling tactic. It may be all of these things. Still, the West should call Russian President Vladimir Putin’s bluff: Even a limited inspection and disarmament program would do more damage to Syria’s capabilities than a handful of missiles.

Opening Syrian stockpiles to inspectors and destroying even a fraction of the weapons could go further to achieve the West’s goals than the type of limited attack under consideration.

This isn’t to say that the Russian plan is without pitfalls. The tasks of assessing and destroying a country’s chemical weapons are daunting. Almost a decade after promising to disarm, Libya still possessed almost half of its mustard gas and precursors; Syria has a much bigger stockpile. The United States started destroying its chemical weapons in the 1990s, and the effort is expected to drag on until 2023 at a cost of $35 billion.

In addition, huge risks are involved with moving chemical weapons across a war zone, and destroying them in place will require building expensive, specialized facilities.

All of this assumes that Putin and Assad aren’t merely playing for time. To ensure they are sincere, they must meet certain crucial conditions.

First, Syria must sign and ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention, as it has promised to do. And its tally of its chemical weapons holdings must roughly match existing intelligence estimates.

Second, any deal must set clear deadlines for every stage.

Third, and most important, the United Nations Security Council must back any plan with a so-called Chapter VII resolution, permitting the use of force. The threat of military action is what compelled Syria to allow in UN inspectors.

Let’s consider the worst-case scenario: Putin and Assad aren’t sincere and their offer is a ploy to forestall an imminent strike, with the hope of tying up the U.S. in a frustrating game of catand-mouse, as Iraq did in the 1990s.

That concern is easily dismissed: Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told Congress last week that the earliest date for a strike would be mid-October. The military threat would remain intact. It could even be enhanced. Congress, the American public and the international community would be far more likely to back a strike if a good-faith disarmament effort has been tried and failed.