On the other hand, the American diplomacy has also weakened Syria's moral standing. Over the past two and a half years, the U.S. has been labeling Bashar Assad as a dictator responsible for causing a serious humanitarian crisis. Yet after this particular round of diplomacy, Assad's regime has become an evil one poisoning its own people, though the question remains whether it was really the regime that used the chemicals.

The U.S. has never abandoned its intentions to overthrow Assad's regime by military means. A demonized image of Assad will greatly increase the legitimacy of any potential future U.S. military intervention in Syria's domestic affairs.

By bringing Syria's chemical weapons to the eyes of the world, the U.S. had only achieved its very first initial success. Washington's dissatisfaction with Assad stems mostly from his alliance with Iran instead of any other problems. As long as Assad stays in power, the U.S. will be unlikely to forego military intervention, even though it is still not ready for a post-Assad Syria. Washington apparently thinks that the opposition also consists of "bad guys."

According to the agreement, within one week, Syria will have to make an account of all its weapon categories; coming November, Syria will receive inspections; and next year, it will have its chemical weapons eliminated. With such arrangements, Syria might be able to fulfill a significant part of its obligations, but the time left is far from enough for completing such a huge task. The U.S. could very easily run into trouble with Syria in the process.

Such doubt is not entirely without grounds. Firstly, the agreement includes the intention of the use of military means. It says "in the event of non-compliance, including unauthorized transfer, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in Syria, the UN Security Council should impose measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter." Secondly, the U.S. mainstream media is drumming up - once again - support for stern enforcement of the agreement. The first can interpreted as a kind of legal preparation, whereas the second may be seen as media preparation for a potential war on Syria.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:

http://china.org.cn/opinion/jinliangxiang.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.