The White House says the proposal was no reason for Congress to avoid a vote. U.S. open to Russian weapons proposal

White House and State Department officials said Monday they’re open to proposals by Russia to put Syria’s stocks of chemical weapons under international control, but that such talk is no reason for the U.S. to back away from President Barack Obama’s threat of a military strike.

The administration’s willingness to consider such a plan offered the first hint at a scenario that might avert a U.S. attack on Syria and could even take the pressure off lawmakers to cast a vote to authorize a military action that is highly unpopular with the war-weary American public.


“We’d have to take a hard look. Any transfer of chemical weapons to international control would be a positive development,” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said when asked about the Russian initiative during an interview on MSNBC. “We’ve been highly skeptical to date. They have not even declared their chemical weapons stockpiles.”

( Also on POLITICO: W.H.: Russian offer because of U.S. pressure)

Rhodes said the U.S. would “follow up” with the Russians on the point “to discuss the seriousness of the proposal,” but he noted that Russia has a record of defending the regime in Damascus.

“What we don’t want to have is a stalling exercise where the Syrians don’t follow through on commitments. We’ll take a look at this,” he said.

The White House official specifically said the Russian proposal was no reason for Congress to avoid a vote okaying a U.S. military response.

“That makes it all the more important we continue to move forward, continue to seek this authorization from Congress and continue to send a message to [Syrian President Bashir] Assad that there will be consequences for his use of chemical weapons.” Rhodes said. “If we don’t do that, you can be certain he will take a green light to continue to use these weapons and certainly won’t be likely to transfer them to international control.”

( WATCH: Timeline of Syria crisis response)

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking at a previously scheduled White House event on wildlife trafficking, raised the Russian proposal while expressing caution.

”Now, if the regime immediately surrendered its stockpiles to international control, as was suggested by Secretary [of State John] Kerry and the Russians, that would be an important step. but this cannot be another excuse for delay or obstruction,” she said, adding that “Russia has to support the international community’s efforts sincerely or be held to account.”

Clinton, who said she’d just come from a meeting with Obama, also argued that the Russian offer was a product of the U.S. president’s public declaration of an intent to attack Syria over its alleged use of chemical weapons on its own populace last month.

“It is very important to note that this discussion that has taken hold today about potential international control over Syria’s stockpiles only could take place in the context of a credible military threat by the United States to keep pressure on the syrian government as well as those supporting Syria like Russia,” she said.

( PHOTOS: What lawmakers said then (Iraq) and now (Syria))

White House spokesman Jay Carney declined to say whether the president would proceed with an attack even as the U.S. hears out the Russians about their proposal.

“You’re spinning forward here. In terms of military action, we’re still engaged with Congress at this point,” Carney said.

Rhodes’s comments about a willingness to explore the Russian suggestion were echoed by another White House official who briefed reporters Monday afternoon and by a State Department spokeswoman made similar remarks in what appeared to be a coordinated administration response.

“It’s very important to note that it’s clear that this proposal comes in the context of the threat of U.S. action and the pressure that the president is exerting,” Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken said at the daily White House briefing.

Blinken said the proposal did not originate with the U.S. and was not part of an effort by the administration to provide Assad with an opportunity to escape an American strike.

( Also on POLITICO: Rice: U.S. inaction in Syria would threaten security)

“We literally just heard it about this as you did some hours ago,” he said.

Despite the tepid response from the White House, one prominent Democratic lawmaker sounded a positive note Monday about the Russian proposal.

“I have read the announcement by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that his country has asked Syria to transfer control of its chemical weapons to international monitors for destruction to prevent an international strike. I would welcome such a move,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a statement.

“I believe that Russia can be most effective in encouraging the Syrian president to stop any use of chemical weapons and place all his chemical munitions, as well as storage facilities, under United Nations control until they can be destroyed,” she added.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also expressed interest Monday in the Russian proposal and predicted that the international community would act quickly if Syria was willing to turn its chemical weapons over to international control.

( Also on POLITICO: John Kerry under fire for 'unbelievably small' comment)

While Blinken suggested the U.S. was taken by surprise by the Russian offer, the Russians appeared to have seized on comments by Secretary of State John Kerry earlier Monday during a news conference in London.

Asked if there is anything Assad could do to avert a military strike, Kerry said: “He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that. But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously.”

However, White House officials said Kerry was simple reiterating a longstanding U.S. position and not trying to open a new round of negotiations to stave off a U.S. military response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime on Aug. 21.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said the U.S. would welcome the Syrian regime giving up its chemical weapons. “ Clearly, we think that would be a positive step for the Syrian people, for the region, for the whole international community,” she said.

However, she said the U.S. was treating the Russian suggestion skeptically because of that country’s record of siding with Assad in his harsh crackdown on opposition forces and civilians.

“The Russians for months and years have stood up for the Syrian regime at the United Nations,” Harf said.