Is diplomacy the harder solution in Syria?

Here’s the reality of the situation: A diplomatic solution to Syria’s use of chemical weapons will include “boots on the ground.” The threat of a military solution will not.

It should come as no surprise that anything other than doing nothing in Syria will be costly and threatens the deployment of soldiers to Syria to ensure compliance. But why does diplomacy seem so enticing?

Let’s assume Bashar al-Assad agrees to surrender his chemical stockpiles to an international body for control or destruction. What next? Minimally, there has to be a cease-fire in Syria’s civil war. There can be no inspection regime until all parties involved in the fighting in Syria agree to stop fighting and to an intrusive cease-fire verification regime.

Having led the initial weapons of mass destruction hunt in Iraq in 2003, I can tell you that there is no possibility that inspectors should volunteer to race into harm’s way to inspect a possible chemical site without a phalanx of soldiers protecting them.

Is a cease-fire likely? No side is incentivized to stop fighting. The minority Alawites are running Syria as well as for their lives.

Iran has stoked this war by proxy; it has no interest in a cessation of hostilities.

More From CNN: