Assad's not going to pull a Ben Ali and leave for Iran

When Chemical Weapons Are Smart Politics by Joshua Keating

He talks to the authors of the Dictator's Handbook who say:

First of all, using chemical weapons has absolutely cemented that for Assad there can be no soft landing. That has two effects: Domestically, it has signaled to his coalition that they should stick with him. He’s there for the long run and there’s no easy way out for him, so they know he won’t desert them. These crimes against humanity have also made it very clear that it’s going to be very bad for the Alawites if there’s any political transition, which makes them even more loyal to him. They have nowhere else to go. 

It’s also been a brilliant play internationally. The extent of the chemical weapons has not be so much that Obama’s willing to put ground forces in. The airstrikes they are discussing are unlikely to be a decisive military factor. And Russia and Iran would love to snub the nose of the U.S. and this is a perfect way to do it. The U.S. is going to have to go it alone if they do it, and this is a great way for Russia and Iran to make the U.S. look impotent and pathetic. Russia’s going to continue supplying [Assad] with weapons and Iran’s going to keep supplying him with money. So this was actually a brilliant play from him.

This makes Iran, Russia, and China look bad. The long term goal of the U.S. should be to change Russian and Iranian attitudes such that they don't love to snub the nose of the U.S.

How did the West convince Yeltsin to let go of Milosevic? It was after the Russian debt default and Putin took over shortly afterwards.