Putin’s plans in Syria tempting, but rotten

David Cameron used the word "clear" four times in his short but foggy statement to the Commons about the legality of using drones to kill British jihadists in Syria. You don’t have to be a Viennatrained psychoanalyst to see he was trying to deflect from the utter lack of clarity in what could be a new phase of war.

There is already a strong and, yes, clear case for declaring Isis to be an enemy of Britain; for extending the present bombing mission from Iraq to Syria; and for targeting Isis headquarters and arms depots in both countries. Parliament should authorise such a campaign without further ado. Targeting British jihadists with a drone demands, however, more explanation about the plot that they were allegedly hatching.

If the facts are completely obscured, suspicion will linger that the government was not so much acting out of national selfdefence as executing by remote control a couple of ruthless fanatics pour encourager les autres. Not so much an act of combat as a Clint Eastwood-style don’t-mess-with-us message. Despite the baying approval of the tabloids this week, that would unravel the war against Isis and plunge us into moral netherland.

Ever since refugees started to arrive on Europe’s doorstep, there has been moral confusion. Syria is no longer a distant war. Is it a specifically European duty to take in refugees because we failed to act against Bashar al-Assad? Should other nations, including the United States and many countries in the Middle East, be made to take quotas? Should asylum-seekers be able to choose their refuge?

The war has raged for almost five years, yet we are only now trying to come to grips with its complexity. The effect of a British drone fired by British controllers (sitting in Kuwait) acting on British intelligence against two British jihadists has at last made this Syrian war our own. Which means that we have to understand that the migration wave hitting our shores will only recede when Syria itself is at a kind of peace.

The most pressing dilemma, then, is not who should or should not be targeted by drones, but whether we should start cooperating with Assad in the fight against Isis. Cameron told parliament he acted alone in Syria because there was "no government we can work with" and he was right. It remains western policy to ignore the existence of the Assad regime while fighting against Isis; that is the only practical way of keeping Saudi Arabia and Turkey in a broad anti-Isis coalition. Ask the Syrian refugees in Europe why they left and, depending on their affiliation, they will blame both the savagery of Isis and the naked violence of the barrel bombs that are being rolled on to marketplaces by Assad’s airforce.

But the defeat of Isis in Syria is only possible with the help of a sophisticated ground army. The only one available is Assad’s Russian-equipped force, which is still broadly capable if assisted by Iranian-backed Hezbollah units and Russian advisers. The West’s confusion, its inability to land crushing blows on Isis, has not gone unnoticed by Vladimir Putin.

Judging by his talks with recent Arab visitors, Putin imagines Syria will be partitioned, with the Assad terrain protected by Moscow. Iranians and Russians are nervous that their client dictator will flee, the Alawite governing class will be massacred and they will lose an important strategic ally.

Putin wants to offer Barack Obama the opportunity to team up, engage with Assad and smash Isis together. The Russians will then bring Assad to the negotiating table to set up the power-sharing government of a new Syrian confederation. According to the Kremlin recipe book, shielding Assad will benefit everybody.

For a West fatigued by the misery of Syria, that might seem tempting. It’s a solution that would be engineered by one of the world’s most cynical leaders. It will split Europe, rehabilitate Putin (Ukraine conveniently forgotten and ripe perhaps for a partitioning of its own); Assad may even step aside eventually for another Russian/Iranian crony. The deal would stink from top to bottom.