IN SYRIA, RUSSIA IS THE REAL THREAT
U.S. must use leverage to counter Putin’s ambitions in Eastern Europe
The latest U.S.-Russian talks on Syria have delivered, for the moment, hope for renewed humanitarian aid and the possibility of a partial cease-fire. Thanks to months of Russian air and artillery strikes, diplomacy has locked rebels in a weak position.
Winning now on the ground, Bashar Assad and Russia have little need to reach a long-term settlement to the Syrian war that returns control of Syria to the Syrian people. Instead, this shaky partial solution allows the mass of refugees fleeing the chaos to continue to grow, leaving difficult choices for America and Europe.
President Obama has wisely resisted reckless calls to launch U.S. ground forces into Syria and Iraq to defeat ISIL, also known as ISIS or the Islamic State. This would attract a surge of new zealots to ISIL’s ranks. American troops would once again be chasing fighters that would blend back into the population, and just as before, we would be caught in the deep geopolitical struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Now there is Russia — with its scary S-400 air defense system, new jets and an implicit nuclear threat. As attention turns to some form of coordinated action against ISIL and other terrorists groups left out of the cease-fire, the United States and our allies cannot leave Russia’s position uncontested and a weak role for our allied-funded “good” jihadis.
GEOSTRATEGIC ‘ARTIFACT’
In considering alternatives, we must understand that ISIL is not just a terrorist group but more a geostrategic “artifact” of the power struggle between Iran and its almost ally, Iraq, on the one hand, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia on the other. That power struggle doesn’t pause during a cease-fire.
ISIL is a Frankenstein emerging from poorly coordinated Sunni efforts to strike down Assad’s regime as a means of thwarting Iran’s grab for regional hegemony. From its beginning, groups of fighters that emerged as ISIL have received outside funding, weapons, intelligence and sometimes even direction. ISIL exploited Qatari- Saudi rivalries, Turkey’s ambitions and fears, Kurdish fear of Shiite-dominated Iraq, Sunni resentment of Hezbollah and Sunni disdain for Shiites. Above all, the terrorist group floated upon the decades-long rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia. For sure, it isn’t in U.S. interest to see a still hostile Iran dominate the region.
If the only real solution lies in diplomacy, then some leverage has to be found to reduce Russia’s role. Until Assad’s regime is once more at risk, neither he nor Iran has any reason to make concessions or help resolve the region’s deeper geostrategic struggle .
More fundamental, we have to recognize that while ISIL is a real threat to the U.S. and our allies, the bigger threat is Russia. President Vladimir Putin has shown his teeth in Georgia in 2008, in Ukraine in 2014-15 and in Syria today. Eastern Europe remains under threat, for example, with Putin’s latest “snap” military exercise focused on Ukraine.
DECEITFUL PUTIN
Putin’s objectives include regaining dominance over Eastern Europe, retaining his grip on Europe’s energy supply, strengthening his presence in the Middle East and, ultimately, ending the sanctions he faces. Such achievements would spell the practical end of the European Union and the failure of NATO.
Putin’s behavior doesn’t reflect the actions of a timid, cornered leader of a weak power, but rather a purposeful and deceitful leader willing to use force and risk major conflicts to have his way. History has shown that such leaders must be opposed; they cannot be appeased.
In this new, multipolar world, the U.S. must supply more than our good offices. Successful diplomacy requires greater leverage.
In the challenging days of the Balkan crisis more than 20 years ago, many attempts were made to propose solutions. The diplomacy was seemingly endless and the fighting persisted — until the combination of Croatian military prowess, the stubborn resistance of besieged Sarajevo and longterm Western sanctions helped persuade Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic to accept a settlement. That eventually took a commitment of U.S. peace enforcers, a threat to remove sanctions on Milosevic opponents and back their military action with American air power and forceful, direct, personal diplomacy at the highest levels.
The Syria problem is infinitely more difficult than the Balkans, but the principles remain the same. And the U.S., working with the U.N. and all the parties in the region, could broker the solutions we need for ISIL, the larger geostrategic conundrum of the Middle East and Russian threats in Europe. If we don’t, who will?
Retired general Wesley K. Clark, a former NATO supreme commander, is author of Don’t Wait for the Next War: A Strategy for American Growth and Global Leadership.