Are you ready for the two-headed coalition?

Xi, for his part, delivered a one-two-three punch. 1) the move towards a "multi-polar world" is an "irresistible trend." 2) China is committed to peaceful development, and won't pursue "hegemony, expansion, or sphere of influence." 3) partnerships must evolve where everyone is "treated as equals," and big and strong countries do not 'bully the small, weak and poor; the law of the jungle is not the way for countries to conduct international relations."

Cue to apoplectic hysteria engulfing neo-cons and "neoliberalcons."

Are you with them or against them?

Behind all the posture under the glaring lights, a subtler undercurrent is detectable. The Obama administration -- despite its solidly embedded neocon cells and its overall humanitarian imperialism character -- is slowly beginning to realize there must be a serious collaborative road map to be followed across "Syraq."

Last week, "Sultan Erdogan" had a crucial meeting with Putin. Afterwards, he immediately changed his regime change tune: "We can have a process without Assad, or something like going with Assad during a transition period." The always slippery Erdogan now seems to support what he defined as a "triple initiative" on Syria featuring the US, Turkey and Russia. And that could also include Saudi Arabia and Iran. This is no less than the backbone of the coalition Russia is proposing.

As Plan A for the fight against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, Rouhani at the UN even invoked an echo of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreed between the P5+1 and Iran for the nuclear dossier. It's important once again to remember that as it stands, Iran and Russia have no "military coalition" in Syria -- as Rouhani stressed in New York. What does exist is an intelligence sharing agreement among Syria, Iraq, Iran and Russia, just set up in Baghdad. Call it the Gang of Four (Damascus-Baghdad-Tehran-Moscow). Why not?

Putin insisted at the UN on coordination between all anti-ISIS/ISIL/Daesh forces based on UN principles. The key principle at stake is statehood. In the Syria case, that translates as support for the government in Damascus, which may have monstrous flaws, but it's the only game in town. The "alternative" is the Salafi-jihadi barbarians.

So this is the way the regime change obsession of the Obama administration ends; not with a bang, but a whimper. The question is how will the Obama administration still plan to use Salafi-jihadis for its "Assad must go" operation while also fighting them as leaders of a coalition. Certainly not by using the "no more than five" moderate rebels it trained and weaponized with a $500 million budget.

LISTEN MORE: