Letting Russia rise

For decades there was bipartisan consensus to block, first the Soviets, and then the Russians from expanding influence (not to mention establishing new military outposts) in the Middle East.

It was, you may recall, only because of the late Anwar Sadat’s courage in turning his back on the Soviet Union and embracing the West (including peace with Israel and enhanced relations with Israel) that the first break through between Israel and her Arab neighbors occurred.

Russia’s presence in the region, such as its buildup in Syria, impedes peace and stability; its marginalization helps promote both.

“Forget the danger that an Assad backed by Russia poses, or what it means for the humanitarian crisis now washing onto Europe’s shores,” posits Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute. “Think instead

about the fact that if, heaven forbid, the US decided to do something about both Assad and ISIS in Syria, and wanted a no fly zone or a safe corridor, it could put us in conflict with the Russian military. Suddenly, every calculus sounds like Ukraine: Doing the right thing increasingly means facing down a determined Kremlin. Arm Ukraine? No. Expand NATO? No. Contain Iran? No. Fight Assad[?] No. Suddenly, we are being deterred by Moscow. Welcome back to the old days.”

Actually, the old days, at least the 1980s, were much better since the United States was successful in keeping Russia out of the Middle East and keeping Europe whole and free.

Anyone still think the Russia reset was a good idea? Obama’s aboutface on the red line for Syria’s use of WMDs? Running to Russian President Vladimir Putin for help with Syria? Not unless he or she is willfully blind to events over the past couple of years.

It is hard to exaggerate the extent of the diplomatic debacle President Obama will leave his successor.