The first is what to do with Bashar al-Assad. He began as a moderate totalitarian before degenerating into a full blown tyrant, killing tens of thousands of his own people, and forcing millions of others to flee.
Both superpowers are now speaking the same language, that he needs to go in the longer term, but in the interim, he may have a "transitional" role to play.
The question this raises is how long is transitional? Will Assad and his regime be held to account for the crimes they have committed, and will there be full and free elections for the Syrian people?
If Assad remains in power and regains the initiative, the refugee problem will get worse as he cleanses the country. If there are not free elections for the Syrians and they cannot determine their own destiny, history will repeat itself.
In either of these situations, Obama and friends should disengage from Syria. Fighting to protect the tyranny of Assad because of the fear of the evil of Isis would be pointless. Leaving Russia to prop up Assad alone would mirror the disaster of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1980.
Putin and Obama need each other. This will end in an unwinnable war if either side fights without the other in support.
Pragmatically, Assad will probably get an amnesty, a shared power arrangement will emerge with some of the opposition, and a timetable to the ballot box will be given.
The second question is what to do with the map of the region.
Leaders of countries are loathe to see their territories broken up, yet in both Syria and Iraq there is a strong case for the lines to be redrawn to suit the needs of the people on the ground and their quests for self determination.
Recent history shows us that dividing up the former Yugoslavia and the Sudan was essential to stop the killing in these regions. We need to have the same open mind in the Middle East, and especially in the case of Kurdistan.
Finally, if we can agree to a "transitional" arrangement that leads to types of democracy, human rights and a civil society we can agree with, then the third question arises: namely, would we be willing to put Kiwi boots on the ground with soldiers wearing blue helmets as part of a much larger international effort to create and then enforce the peace in this area?
This need is obvious as thousands of airstrikes have not destroyed Isis.
Nor has the existing status quo of local forces made a dent in the opposition, despite billions spent in support.
Ideals of retaking population centres where more than 7 million Iraqis and Syrians are already resident and often sympathetic to Isis, are pipe dreams.
This can only change if the boots on the ground are reliable, professional, efficient and there for the long term.
The long term means a dozen years plus, as peace only grows slowly.
