Hope that a Western attack on Syria can be avoided has grown in the last week as a deal for Damascus to hand over its chemical weapons is being considered.

It began a week ago today when young CNS reporter Margaret Brennan put a question to US Secretary of State John Kerry: "Is there anything at this point that [Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's] government could do or offer that would stop an attack?"

Kerry replied: "Sure. He could turn over every bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week.

"Turn it all over 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."

Kerry may have thought not - but others had different ideas.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov quickly called on Assad to hand over his chemical weapons to the international community so they could be destroyed.

Later the same day British Prime Minister David Cameron was asked about the offer in Parliament.

"If it is a genuine offer, it should be genuinely looked at," he conceded.

The rabbit was out of the bag and running.

By Tuesday night US President Barack Obama was addressing the public. He spent much of the address arguing that the military threat to Syria's government had to be maintained, but claimed a preference for a peaceful solution.

"The Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons.

"The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons and even said it would join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use," he said.

Obama then announced that he had asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote on authorising the use of force against Syria while the diplomatic path was pursued, that he had spoken to the leaders of two of the Washington's "closest allies" - France and Britain - and would "work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the UN security council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons."

The diplomatic tone was followed up by more bellicose rhetoric on the military maintaining its current posture "to keep the pressure on Assad" and warning that "the US military doesn't do pinpricks."

Support for the diplomatic route quickly came from the other side of the planet, with Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei saying the disarmament proposal deserved "the positive consideration of the international community."

Hong confirmed that a six-person delegation sent by a Syrian opposition organisation, the Syrian National Dialogue Forum, had arrived in China to meet officials on potential peaceful solutions to Syria's civil war.

"China has always believed that a political resolution was the only practical way out of the Syrian crisis. China has been working on all relevant parties in Syria and making relentless efforts for a political resolution," he said.

But if the plan is pulled off the potential benefits could spread beyond Syria.

Moscow Carnegie Centre think tank director Dmitry Trenin told the Moscow Times that putting Syria's chemical weapons under international control had actually been proposed last year by former US senator Richard Lugar, one of the sponsors of the Nunn-Lugar programme which provided assistance to post-Soviet republics to transfer stockpiles of weaponry to Russia for decommissioning.

How might a bold diplomatic plan work out?

Syria is not a party to the 189-member state Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), but it is party to the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons. That's a start.

One as yet untried diplomatic option would be to work under the auspices of the CWC to rapidly remove chemical weapons from Syria.

Negotiating and implementing this would bring Syria's government into close engagement with the world community and would involve the presence of UN inspection teams.

While the process was under way any use of chemical weapons there could be unequivocally attributed, whereas now international opinion is divided over whether Assad or the rebels used them.

The first step would be to urgently convene a special session of state parties to the CWC - any member state could do so. Britain might be especially appropriate since Cameron said on September 4 that it should "use all its diplomatic muscle in discussions with those countries that have backed the [Syrian] regime."

The session would seek rapid accession to the CWC by states that are not yet parties to it, with special attention to Syria.

Other countries which haven't signed are South Sudan, North Korea, Egypt and Angola, while Israel and Myanmar have signed but not ratified it.

If the session were successful Syria would rapidly sign and accept the removal of chemical weapons from its territory, allowing for stringent inspections to verify its compliance.

Why might Damascus agree to do this?

A major motive would be pressure from its allies.

Russia could be important in this respect but the primary actor would be Iran.

Iran is a firm ally of Syria, but its people have learned from bitter experience to abhor chemical weapons.

In April Tehran stated to the CWC review conference on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement countries and China: "The Non-Aligned Movement CWC states and China express their deep concern that chemical weapons may have been used in the Syrian Arab Republic.

"We underline that the use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstances would be reprehensible and completely contrary to the legal norms and standards of the international community."

Translating that sentiment into action could involve a bargain directly affecting Iran, Syria, Egypt and Israel, while indirectly involving the five UN security council permanent members.

It would involve rethinking entrenched positions.

One part of the deal would be for Syria, Egypt and Israel to become party to the CWC, with a special arrangement for the rapid removal of chemical weapons in Syria's case.

Implementing the CWC in Egypt and Israel could follow a normal schedule.

But to agree on this Syria and Egypt would have to abandon their longstanding refusal to accede to the CWC until Israel signs up to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and dismantles its nuclear arsenal.

In return Israel would need to make some concessions - overcoming its reluctance to ratify the CWC.

But it would also need to shift on the nuclear issue, which Syria says is its reason for maintaining chemical weapons stockpiles.

Israel eliminating its nuclear weapons is unlikely, but there are concessions which could mollify Iran, Egypt and Syria.

One could be for Israel to drop its position of nuclear "opacity" - acknowledging that it has nuclear weapons and stating their purpose.

Another concession could be a moratorium on its production of fissile material.

Such concessions would enhance Israel's security and could significantly improve the climate for an agreement on Iran's civil nuclear programme.

Dream on, you might say - Israel's record hardly suggests it is about to make these concessions.

But actually its government is already committed to negotiations of this type.

At the generally overlooked 2008 Paris summit for the Mediterranean, co-chaired by France and Egypt. Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert agreed to a joint declaration which included a commitment to work towards a Middle East free of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

The bargain outlined here sets a daunting task for negotiators. But it offers an outcome far more attractive than the status quo or unilateral air strikes by the US - an outcome that could benefit the whole region.

David Lowry is former director of the European Proliferation Information Centre. Gordon Thomspon directs the Institute for Resource and Security Studies in Cambridge, Massachusetts.