Restoring vision to US foreign policy

Most observers of Russia’s recent intervention in Syria on behalf of the Assad regime have concluded that the consequences are ultimately bad for the United States. Specifically, analysts are quick to point out that Russia’s military escalation limits the number and quality of U.S. strategic options in Syria and in the region more broadly. While these claims seem accurate on the surface, there are in fact numerous opportunities that the U.S. should seize upon in the wake of a revanchist, thought still relatively weak, Russia. There is even room to thank Russia, because, in truth, they are a wake up call.

First and foremost, Russia’s recent aggression is possible because of a domestic political structure that differs very sharply from ours. Unlike in America, President Putin can pursue bold and decisive foreign policy choices, since he is not beholden to overlapping bureaucracies and a stagnated legislative decision-making body (i.e. Congress). Nevertheless, when the discordant entities comprising the United States government can actually agree on a foreign policy vision, something that our nation has lacked in a unified and uniform fashion for over fifteen years, there is no nation or coalition of nations on Earth who can daunt our will and our might. In this sense, Russia has done us a favor. Her actions have forced the U.S. to reconsider its expedited disengagement from global conflict, and therewith prompted the reconstruction of a real foreign policy agenda.

{mosads}Had things played out such that Russia never intervened in Syria, then the U.S.- as it has planned to under the Obama Administration- would surely have allowed its Afghanistan military presence to dwindle to 1,000 troops by 2017 as was previously mandated. President Obama has officially changed course and is now allowing that number to remain at a more palatable, though still inadequate, force of 5,500 soldiers after 2016. Concurrently, in response to Russia’s robust air and naval support of Assad’s counteroffensive on the ground, the U.S. is now transferring significantly more lethal military aid to CIA-vetted rebel forces in Syria and is moving, after some coaxing, to step up support for the Iraqi government in its fight with ISIL there. This increased aid has galvanized the moderate opposition, as they have bolstered their efforts to counter the Assad regime with new weaponry and a confident recommitment from the U.S. 

There is even more room for strategic maneuverability. Russia has tacitly positioned itself alongside the Shia-axis of Iran and Syria, thus portending a powerful regional alliance that could upset the already tenuous balance of power. Though our options are increasingly limited within Syria proper vis-à-vis our push for a political settlement that transitions Assad out of power, the U.S. has fertile diplomatic opportunity elsewhere. The U.S. has already begun working in close economic and military coordination with Egypt under the secular rule of General al-Sisi, and Egypt still stands as a significant deterrence force against both the ‘Shia crescent’ and the rise of ISIL throughout the region. The Saudis will surely look to foster greater cooperation with the U.S. in the face of ISIL, the Houthis in Yemen raging at their border, an expansionist Iran, and an increasingly aggressive Russia.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the putative return of Russia to the Middle East and her direct and repeated violation of Turkish airspace will push Turkey to choose sides in the widening regional conflict. Turkey, under President Erdogan, is a Sunni-led government and does not naturally ally with the clerical Shiite regime in Iran, though they have warmed to one another in recent years. Knowing this, the U.S. should explore the prospect of deeper strategic coordination with Turkey as a means to deter the Iran-Syria-Russian axis that grows increasingly close-knit and indomitable. In the long term and from a position of renewed leadership, the U.S. should look to foster a coalition of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, thus aligning them in mutual interest against common foes. The U.S. priority should be to empower this alliance of nations as a bulwark and counterbalance to growing Shiite dominance in the region. The U.S. must ensure that intimidating unilateral action by Russia does not corrupt the belief that the U.S. is still the most powerful and reliable offshore actor in the Middle East.

The resurgence of Russia and the rise of ISIL should serve as rallying cries to improve U.S. relations with other regional powers, and, in a method similar to Nixon and statesman Henry Kissinger, “link” progress on issues relating to Russia and militant Islam to other areas of American geostrategic concern.

Diamond is a student of Economics at Yeshiva University and the director of Policy at Yeshiva University College Republicans.