Rhetorical Questions for Assad

John Kerry will soon find it tougher going. Whenever the U.S. secretary of state opens his mouth, everyone will expect to hear a sardonic remark that he was only speaking rhetorically. Meanwhile, the U.S. mantra that Assad is the one who has to yield is what has actually proven to be purely rhetorical.

But apart from Washington’s massive loss of credibility, Kerry’s poor choice of words in suggesting Syria place its chemical weapons stockpile under international control as the way to avoid being militarily attacked makes it seem as if the attack was Syria’s idea in the first place.

However, the real winner here is clearly Assad. The events of the coming months may already be predicted by posing a couple of questions — purely rhetorical, of course:

1. What is the probability that Moscow will allow anything more than a toothless U.N. resolution without the West backing it up with the threat of a military strike?

2. How likely is it that Assad will reveal his chemical weapons arsenal in its entirety?

3. How likely is it that the U.N. inspectors will be able to make any progress in the midst of a civil war?

No, Assad hasn’t the slightest reason to show his hand. Why should he surrender his greatest military asset because of Kerry’s on-the-record threat of an “unbelievably small” military strike? Yet, he does have every reason to get into the game because he’s holding more than just a joker.