Question Author
I'd say "yes" almost certainly.
It's not even that this agreement won't lead to Assad giving up all his chemical weapons.
But look at it this way: for the last two years he's been conducting a genocidal campaign against his own people, whether initially by suppressing peaceful protests or by using unreasonable force even in the context of a bloody civil war. The US, which could have acted, did nothing.
Then someone, possibly his hotheaded brother, pops off a serious and mass-murdering sarin attack on civilians. All of a sudden the US, thanks to Obama's "red line" speech of last year, feels moved to action.
But it's all a bit half hearted and the central illogicality of "punishing" him by lobbing missiles at him, rather than vowing to have him and his regime arrested for war crimes, is never squared.
Of course what would have happened is an attack which would have brought him to the negotiating table - the right thing to do but for the wrong reason.
As it is, the swift change of tack by him and his allies after the belated US threat demonstrated - as if it needed to be - that force or the threat of it works with him.
But now the obsession with finding an agreement on chemical weapons will leave him free to carry on as before, only with intensified efforts, against all and sundry. It's true that the opposition carries out war crimes too, but they are paltry compared to what he is doing.