What good is the new offer of mediation in the Syrian crisis? The Assad regime has to disclose its chemical weapons and even destroy some.

It sounds like a good deal, at least on paper. Syria granted international observers access to its chemical weapons stocks and destroyed large sections of the agents. In return, the West’s, led by the United States, initially on a military intervention in the civil war. What simply reads, should bring with it, according to experts in the implementation biggest problems.

In time of peace is the detection and protection of chemical weapons is anything but an easy task – that have examples in Iraq, Iran or North Korea proved. But Syria is in the third year of a bloody civil war. The use of UN inspectors would thereby again significantly more complicated, risky and costly.

“The fine print in this agreement really worries me,” Amy E. Smithson said the “New York Times”. The research scientist at the Monterey Institute of International Studies on chemical weapons. “It is a huge challenge for the inspectors would you shut down the production, closing factories and create a list of weapons and delivery vehicles would then have a large amount of weapons will be destroyed -… Middle of a war zone”

The problems start even before inspectors get any access to potential weapons factories and warehouses. For before posting a question is: How many of these places there are in Syria, and where are they located? Estimates currently assume up to 50 deposits. Recently, however, should the government forces have tried to focus on the stocks less places. So this would be theoretically better to protect against capture by the rebels.

Although Assad’s diplomats have promised a disclosure of the deposits in the face of a possible U.S. strike. Whether these representations of the notoriously unreliable regimes are worth much, however, is doubted by many observers. Many suspect that the motive is simply the gain of time for the regime behind the offer.

Would also need to be clarified in complicated negotiations which weapons systems may be put under the microscope. Finally, many missile systems are good both for launching conventional and chemical weapons. Therefore, plants which fall under the deal, is open to interpretation and to define in detail.

However, even greater concern raises the dire security situation in Syria. Constantly changing frontlines, unsafe structures of the rebel alliance and the ever-present threat of al-Qaeda make a backup of the UN mission to provide logistical challenge. Of a “nightmare” says an unnamed expert in the Obama administration, according to “New York Times”. Observers would need to use in a war zone armed escort party that would be strong enough to counter an attack from one of the two camps.

Syria Crisis:Destruction of chemical weapons extremely costly

An example is the investment in Safira the gates of Aleppo. There, the army maintains a strict secure factory to produce nerve gas. The grounds and surrounding streets in the past were repeated target of attacks by the rebels. A use of inspectors would be possible in the current security situation, only with the greatest risk and with adequate protection effort.

But even if a survey and securing of resources should succeed, would be a gigantic task before: the destruction of the chemical weapons of the Assad regime. Exact figures on stocks are not available. , It is likely, however, that the dictator has accumulated the third largest arsenal of dangerous materials in recent years, after the U.S. and Russia.

In order to make these weapons harmless, extensive technical preparations are necessary. So have some already provided with chemical weapons delivery systems (for example, bombs or rockets) are broken down first. Because of the risk contained by the agents this task is usually taken in the United States of robots.

Syria Crisis:”Agreement is to be treated with caution”

After that contained poisons must be burned at extremely high temperatures in order to render them harmless. For certain chemical warfare agents, a destruction is possible. In any case, the destruction of Assad would mean Arsenal in wartime a horrendous logistical and safety effort.

The Belgian chemical weapons researcher Jean Pascal Zanders warns in the “Washington Post”:. “It is doable, but we should not be naive when it comes to the destruction of ammunition, one must think in years.”
These concerns seem to exist on the part of Western governments. U.S. President Obama spoke indeed of a “potentially positive development,” but also keeps the pressure on the Syrian regime upright, warns of a delaying tactic.

And C-weapons expert Amy E. Smithson sees no reason for unbridled optimism: “This agreement sounds dangerous tempting it is to be treated with caution..”

[adrotate banner=”46″]