In Wake of Syria Deal, Kerry Emphasizes Iran

In a whirlwind trip to allied capitals, Secretary of State John Kerry sought to send the message that the agreement struck Saturday to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons did not signal a weakening of the Obama administration’s stance on Iran.

When Mr. Kerry appeared before Congress earlier this month, he argued that if the United States did not carry out a military strike to punish the Syrian government for the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack near Damascus, it would embolden Iran to proceed with its nuclear program.

“Iran is hoping you look the other way,” Mr. Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Sept. 3.

But speaking in Jerusalem on Sunday, Mr. Kerry asserted that an agreement that would disarm Syria’s chemical arsenal without the use of American force sent an equally strong message.

“If we achieve that, we will have set a marker for the standard of behavior with respect to Iran and with respect to North Korea,” Mr. Kerry said after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.

In a joint news conference with Mr. Kerry, Mr. Netanyahu provided the first official sign of Israel’s approval.

“We have been closely following — and support — your ongoing efforts to rid Syria of its chemical weapons,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “The Syrian regime must be stripped of all its chemical weapons.

“The determination the international community shows regarding Syria will have a direct impact on the Syrian regime’s patron, Iran,” Mr. Netanyahu added.

Mr. Kerry’s trip to Jerusalem was the first stop in a series of meetings with allied officials that are intended to secure support for the chemical weapons deal reached with Russia in Geneva.

After discussions with Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Kerry left Jerusalem for Paris, where he planned to meet on Monday with Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister; William Hague, the British foreign secretary; and Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish foreign minister. Mr. Kerry also was scheduled to meet here separately with Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister.

France, Britain, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have been vociferous critics of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and supporters of the Syrian opposition.

Many allied officials now wonder how to strengthen the Syrian opposition militarily and shift the momentum on the battlefield since the United States has pulled back from a plan for military strikes, which were intended not only to punish the regime but to “degrade” some of Mr. Assad’s forces.

France and Britain are also permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

Under the Geneva pact, the terms of the accord are to be included in a resolution under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which would authorize punitive measures if Syria does not comply.

While Russia, another permanent member of the Council with veto power, would be likely to block any Security Council endorsement of a military strike, Mr. Kerry said the United States remains prepared to launch a unilateral strike if Syria fails to meet its commitments.

“This will only be as effective as its implementation will be, and President Obama has made it clear that to accomplish that, the threat of force remains,” Mr. Kerry said. “The threat of force is real.”

Speaking on TF1 channel on Sunday, President François Hollande of France made a similar point, emphasizing that the military option “should remain on the table.”

“Otherwise there won’t be any pressure,” said Mr. Hollande, who added that a vote by the Security Council on a resolution on Syria would take place “by the end of next week.”

Noting that the civil war was still raging in Syria, Mr. Hollande said that the chemical arms deal on Syria was an “important step” but not “an end point.”

In Ankara, the Turkish government issued a statement noting that while it welcomed the elimination of chemical weapons, the agreement should not be “abused” by the Assad government “to buy time in which to commit more massacres.”

In Israel, security analysts were generally positive about the potential benefits of the deal for Israel.

“It is a good agreement if it will be implemented as it is written, as it reads,” said Amos Yadlin, a former chief of Israel’s military intelligence who now directs the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University. “I think it is a win-win-win-win for Russia, the United States, Syria and Israel.”

If the Geneva agreement is put into effect, he said, it could serve as a signal to Iran that the United States and Russia can join forces on proliferation issues, a message that could have an impact in Tehran so long as it was coupled with a credible American military threat.

But Mr. Yadlin added that he thought the chances of full Syrian compliance were low and that if the process failed, the Iranians might interpret that as reluctance by the United States and the West to use military force. Then, he said, the chances were that the Iranians would be encouraged to accelerate their nuclear efforts, and that “will transfer the ball to the Israeli court.”