Syria: It boils down to Iran and Israel - and Russia and the US

Jonathan Schanzer has a piece has a piece today at Politico that ought to make you sit up and pay attention. His basic point is that chickens have come home to roost for Putin in Syria. The whole honest-broker stance Russia has assumed is being exposed for its mendacity as the implications ofits ties to Iran and its proxies play out.

He gets right to the essence of his urgent message in the second paragraph. (We'll come back to the first paragraph - and his concluding paragraph - in a bit.):

Putin, who unexpectedly thrust Russia into the Syria civil war in September 2015, initially claimed he was there on a counterterrorism mission to fight the Islamic State. Fast-forward 2½ years, and Putin is now in the unlikely position of trying to contain the outbreak of what could be the ugliest Middle East war of the 21st century between Iran and Israel. 

He then fleshes out what he means:

It was all very predictable, the moment that Putin began to partner with Iran and its lethal proxy, Hezbollah. They shared intelligence, patrolled together and fought together against the Sunni jihadists and other rebels who were warring against the Assad regime.
Iran’s motivations for this unlikely marriage were crystal clear: The regime viewed Syria as a crucial territory to maintain a land bridge from their borders to the Mediterranean.

For Iran, Syria was key to regional domination. It was also key to maintaining military supply routes to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Russia, by contrast, had more global ambitions. For one, Putin was putting a finger in the eye of the Obama administration. The message was that Russia could dominate territory once seen as under American influence. Putin also sought to convey to the rest of the Arab world that Russia was a strong and reliable ally for the region, and that Russia was willing to provide advanced weaponry at the right price—and without American-style red tape and oversight.

One country in the region had serious concerns about these developments, and Russia was perfectly willing to hear it out, as Russia wanted to be seen as a neutral mediator:

Putin’s assertion of power was quickly acknowledged by Israelis, who began to pay regular visits to Moscow, during which they raised their concerns about the growing Iranian presence in Syria as well as the military hardware and Shiite militias that Tehran deployed there to shore up a wobbly Assad regime. They warned that Iran was preparing new military infrastructure to target Israel.

As Israeli officials explain, the visits did not include requests to strike at Iranian and Hezbollah targets. Rather, the Israelis simply declared their intent to strike these targets. A line of communication was opened, and has remained open as Israel has conducted more than 100 strikes on Iranian positions in Syria. Israel never took responsibility for these attacks, and Russia never acknowledged them. The Kremlin seemed to think that it could play both sides against one another while it remained in Syria under the pretense of a counterterrorism mission.

But, you see, Russia's actual ally in this situation, Iran, was going to make that stance difficult to maintain:

As Israeli officials explain, the visits did not include requests to strike at Iranian and Hezbollah targets. Rather, the Israelis simply declared their intent to strike these targets. A line of communication was opened, and has remained open as Israel has conducted more than 100 strikes on Iranian positions in Syria. Israel never took responsibility for these attacks, and Russia never acknowledged them. The Kremlin seemed to think that it could play both sides against one another while it remained in Syria under the pretense of a counterterrorism mission.

But that collapsed on February 9, when Iran dispatched a drone into Israeli airspace from the T4 air base west of Palmyra. The Israelis responded by sending eight F-16 fighter jets into Syria to destroy the base as well as a number of anti-aircraft batteries. The attack reportedly came without warning for Russia.

From the Israeli perspective, the airstrikes sent two important messages. First, it was a sharp warning to Iran for violating its airspace. And second, by striking deep inside Syria, the Israelis also conveyed that they could operate inside the country with relative impunity (they lost one fighter jet in the skirmish). Iran now understood that Russia could not necessarily protect its assets inside the country.

And then Trump issued his pull-out-of-Syria-"very soon" statement, which indicated to Israel that, despite a general reinvigoration of the Israel - US alliance, Israel would have to handle Iranian designs on its own. Such is the characteristic lack of consistency in the Very Stable Genius's approach to everything.

 . . . without the implied protection from its most powerful ally, Israel’s war planners apparently felt empowered to take matters into their own hands.

That’s exactly what Israel did on Sunday night. The T4 air base was once again the target. Once again, Russia appears to have been left out of the loop. And it also appears that its air defenses were insufficient to prevent a strike on the Iranian air base.

 Putin is now in a precarious spot:

Putin is now sitting on a tinderbox. The ISIS threat may be contained. But a showdown is looming between Israel and Iran on Russia-controlled terrain. With Iran’s long record of sponsoring terrorist groups that target Israel, coupled with regular calls for destruction of the state of Israel, this has been a long time coming. Iran’s Syrian and Lebanese proxies, who are armed to the teeth with up to 250,000 rockets, are preparing to battle the most advanced military in the Middle East. It promises to be the worst war the region has seen in decades.

It's important to note that the dateline on this piece is April 9. That was two days ago. The first paragraph says that "Donald Trump needs to stop prevaricating over Syria," and the last paragraph talks about a "window of opportunity to craft a Syria policy that finally marginalizes both Russia and Iran."

I don't know about "crafting a Syria policy" - the idea of Trump crafting an actual policy for anything seems unlikely - but events since this piece was penned have shown that action - however coherent or not - have overtaken Schanzer's prescription:

Trump tweeted: "Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!"

The Republican firebrand then added: "Our relationship with Russia is worse now than it has ever been, and that includes the Cold War.

"There is no reason for this. Russia needs us to help with their economy, something that would be very easy to do, and we need all nations to work together. Stop the arms race?

Responding to Trump's tweet, a Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman said: “Smart missiles should fly towards terrorists, not a legal government."

Looks more like we're at a confrontation stage than a marginalization stage.

Yes, let's grant that this is a characteristically bratty way for Trump to be communicating about a grave matter. That's hardly the main point now. It's not like he's going to listen to anyone reading this, or anyone at all for that matter, imploring him to dial back the inflamed rhetoric. 

But a layer of consideration - the need for some party to address - militarily - the gas attack on Douma and what it shows the Assad regime is willing to do - has been added atop the hair-raisingly alarming layer of an Iran-Israel conflict playing out in Syria.

As is always the case when putting a situation in historical context, one can expand ever-further out, but it's safe to say that the appeasement that characterized the previous administration's stance toward Russia (reset button, "greater flexibility") even as Russia was overtly humiliating the US (cyberattacks, buzzing of planes and ships) made this juncture possible.

The US, by virtue of its might and influence, has to take the lead in all of this.

It would be a lot more reassuring if the US had a president that had a track record of at least a modicum of consistency. It's clear we won't be "getting out of Syria very soon." 

But whining about that is utterly useless. 

Let's just hope the Very Stable Genius defers to the indisputably wise and principled advisors with which he's surrounded himself. 

We need the best hearts and minds available on the case.

It is very late in the day.