All of the ISIS fighters that have refused to put down their weapons in areas reconquered by the Syrian government (i.e. the most devoted backers of the Caliphate and foreign fighters who can't return home) have fled to Idlib. Are we so amnesiac that we are going to turn the plight of ISIS fighters into a humanitarian crisis?
6
No, no, no. No more US military intervention, overt or otherwise, in the Middle East. No more American limbs, lives, pysches destroyed because of warmongering in US corridors of power like 620 Eighth Avenue.
No more sending in troops to help one group of bad guys fight another group - or several other groups - of bad guys. It always end with the emergence of whole new stripes of bad guys who are just as bad, or even worse, than the bad guys the US originally sought to contain.
And no getting involved in internecine conflicts between different sects or branches of Islam. No good for the West can come of it.
10
I agree with the views presented in this essay. Putin is playing chess while US leadership hasn't quite figured out it has been game on. And the results have been horrifying in every regard. The Iranian regime has more than one Achilles heel, and they should be effectively weakened.
1
The big mistake, and I don't think Mr. Stephens covered it, was Obama, apparently, nodding to Russia in the first place. Russia's big leap into Syria, followed almost immediately on Putin's visit to Obama, though it got so little coverage in the media (big surprise) it is little remembered. And very secretive.
Trump's foreign policy seems ad hoc and often all over the place, but the debacle of the last administration was too much excused. When his term was up, Russia, China, Iran, Syria and N. Korea, were all more powerful than at the start. For the most part, especially since balking at the red line, countries knew they could do whatever they liked and we would do little, if anything, excepting illegal Obama's war in Libya, following the Europeans, who needed us to fight their war. We know how that turned out - a failed society following the dictator, and a tragedy for our diplomatic corps. Because Trump debates with a flame-thrower, it is also forgotten how many of our allies were furious with us during the last administration, at one time a few not even returning Obama's calls. Never mind Israel.
Trump may turn out to be as bad though. He has a tough enough team, and I think his instincts are the opposite of Obama's, but he probably doesn't have a clear enough vision to really do much good for us either. This may continue indefinitely because we don't elect experienced presidents anymore. We elect celebrities or someone from a preferred identity group.
2
If you change the proper names and locations, and substitute "the USSR" and "Red China" for "Iran" and "Russia", this piece becomes a powerful circa-1964 argument for deeper involvement in Vietnam. Except that in Vietnam, there was an existing government (at any given time) that we could claim to be helping; in Syria, we wouldn't even have that.
4
I check in with Bret Stephens periodically to see if he has anything worth reading. As usual, nothing. I think it's appropriate that the NYT might want some "conservative" columnists, but the conservatives have pushed the liberal-conservative spectrum so far to the right that any columnist now known to be 'conservative" is pretty much ultra-right. I don't know that the NYT owes space to the ultra-right on its opinion page.
There must be better. If not, then we're better off without their unbalanced opinions.
3
Yeah Bret just ignore two things: Russia and that Idlib is a part of? yes Bret part of Syria not the US of A. Yes Bret start a war with Russia and then just blame Trump for it - nice Bret.
5
Not my son's war, Bret.
8
Enough of that nonsense. Idlib is an inseparable part of Syria and it should be controlled by the legitimate government of Syria, not by islamist extremists. Any bloodshed could be easily averted by the terrorists surrendering this territory and going back where they came from. On what grounds would US deprive Syria of its province? Why should Syrians in Idlib continue to suffer under the rule of terrorists so that US could spite Iran? Didn't this insane regime change operation kill enough Syrians already? How can Mr. Stephens and other bloodthirsty warmongers live with themselves?
5
Another, in a long line, of empty liberal requests that accomplish nothing except get us involved (at high cost) in other peoples problems!
3
US has no interests in Syria, and even less in Idlib where rebels are not US friends but rather US enemies. Stop this nonsense. It seems to me that some people just want to provoke DJT to do something to blame him later for it.
8
Who wants to thwart Iran? They're the only counter-balance to the almighty Saudis who seem to have a great a stranglehold on Trump as Russia. (At least Trump never did the cha-cha-cha with Putin as he did with the Saudi Royalty.)
Thanks to Trump's deference to the Saudis, Jared bailed out his family's 666 5th Avenue multi-billion dollar fiasco with Qatari money.
Without Trump's implicit consent and support, neither Russia nor Saudi Arabia would be doing this.
Add the likely bloodbath death toll to Trump's mortality rate of 3,000 Puerto Ricans.
It's Assad's poison gas, Putin's troops, Saudi hegemonic ambition, all powered by Trump's green light.
1
Recognize an independent Kurdistan. Give them any non-nuclear weapon in our arsenal with training, including advanced F35a fighters, then pass the popcorn.
1
This column expresses a sickness that many powerful men (and some powerful women) find irresistible.
6
Do we, the U.S., know the stakes in Idlib Province in Syria? The one who most needs to know and who has the most, the supreme, authority to do something constructive in Syria doesn't care. (Others in the Administration know, but are mute or so far ineffective getting our Dear Leader to understand what's going on and take action.)
Trump, with his daily requirement of tweets and personal and legal matters to deal with, has no time to devote to real issues. He has time to lie about a disaster he handled poorly a year ago in Puerto Rico, but not about the looming havoc bearing down on America's southeast coast and inland.
Mr. Stephens presents a strong case for action in Syria to thwart Iran, but with the mid-term elections weeks away and Trump's predilections, don't expect responsible governing to take place anytime soon.
1
How? Words are cheap.
(re: title)
2
We had our chance in 2012-2013 to prevent this. Putin offered to broker a deal bringing both sides to form a government. In the process, Assad would side out. About 10,000 had been killed in the conflict. Obama turned his back on it. Since that time 300,000-500,000 have died and we’ve had the worst refugee crisis since WW II. ISIS spread throughout Iraq and Syria Putin became firmly entrenched in Syria. Obama claimed he had “contained” ISIS. The next day Paris happened and shortly thereafter, San Bernardino. Obama said he was going to bomb Syria for use of chemical weapons but didn't. In the meantime, Russia came in and has no intention of leaving. That was what Trump inherited. Does anyone think he wouldn't have grabbed at the offer from Putin that Obama turned down? When Assad used gas, he didn't hesitate. He sent in the bombers and didn't notify or ask permission from anyone including Russia. He just recently warned everyone, if gas is used in Idlid, we would strike quickly. As far as ISIS is concerned, the NYT acknowledged that Trump gets the credit for the defeat of the ISIS Islamic State. By the end of 2016, Russia is firmly present in Syria. and no one is going to push them out. We lost our opportunity by 2013. But at least now, ISIS no longer a power in Iraq and Syria and Trump has sent a message there are limits to what Syria, Iran, and Russia can do.
1
Not invading Iraq needlessly in 2003 and deposing Sadaam Hussein would have been the smartest/cheapest way to have thwarted Iran. The NeoCons and their media mouthpieces choose to forget it, and the FatCon in the WH is completely unaware of it. Imagine the stronger position fiscally, internationally, politically the US would be in today. Mind-boggling, but we seem desperate to do more dumb things.
2
Let Iran have as much of Syria as they can afford to support. Let them get thoroughly mired in Mideast tribal warfare. We have no vital interest in that fight. We’ve expended blood and treasure far to long in the Mideast.
5
The author of this column describes much of the reality of the Syrian disaster, but he strangely fails to mention one of the primary dynamics of the situation, i.e. the Shia vs Sunni endless conflict. Remember this: the 9/11 attack on the US was paid for and done almost entirely by Sunnis from Saudi. The entire US response has been to punish the Sunnis, even if our oil addiction prevents us from punishing the Saudi elite. And many in the US policy community and electorate think creation of a large area in Shia hands is a great way to punish the Sunnis who attacked us.
1
It's lovely for hawks to assert America's role in the world when the cost is the blood of other people's kids. Until every family has skin in the game, how can our democracy evaluate "vital American interests?" If all of our children are created equal, then Mr. Trump's bone spurs shouldn't have been a barrier to service. Count me out.
4
'What the objective is not is to dictate Syria’s future or solve its problems, much less get into the weeds of sorting out Idlib’s bad rebels from the more moderate ones. Down that road lies Iraq II.'
This is the reality of what will happen should the US intervene in Syria. It's obvious that Brett does not understand military strategy or tactics. No doubt Sec. Mattis is preventing Trump from his worse which in this case involves US military intervention in Syria. In this case, Russia (and Iran) broke Syria so they now own it. I agree that Idlib will be a humanitarian crisis, but the regardless of whether Russia succeeds in helping recapture the city, the Syrian insurgency will continue. Sorry. But there are no good options in Syria. Only bad and worse...
3
Umm, please explain, Mr. Stephens, how escalating the fighting over Idlib Province, and encouraging a prolonged but ultimately unwinnable battle down to the last square meter of ground, will avert a humanitarian catastrophe. Right now, the only way to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe would be for the rebels to negotiate a peaceful surrender of the province to the government in exchange for an agreement to conduct no reprisals against noncombatant civilians. Yes, Assad is willing to destroy Idlib totally, regardless of the cost in civilian lives, to retake it. But that is precisely why offering more support to the rebels is a horribly bad idea. Assad knows that the US has no intent of enacting regime change in Syria (and, probably, no ability to do so within what the American populace will tolerate). So he knows eventually he will win. It's the kind of dumb and hopeless asymmetric warfare that the US has repeatedly gotten entangled into in this century.
4
So are you suggesting that trump starts a major conflict right before the midterms so republicans can call all of us who oppose him treasonous ? If so count me in as a traitor.. I’ve served by accident more time in the Persian gulf and on gonzo station than this clown in chief could imagine. All in a fire room at about 135 deg f. This shouldn’t have started in 2002 and should have stopped in 2009 but here we are with another excuse for the military industrial complex to make money and waste lives. Enough
3
I'm reasonably certain I saw an identical column that urged us to support the rebels in Homs ... then Hama ... Aleppo ... Eastern Ghouta. We were told there would be slaughters. There weren't.
Time to reunite Syria under President Assad. Any military there without permission should be there at their own risk.
2
September 13,2018
We all know the stakes in this arena that's an inferno of chaos and the more things go on the worst is tolerated by all the powers. Yet let's surely give praise to Bret Stephens's article to express opportunity to effect, dare say ' Save Idlip." So again the stakes are a composite of geopolitics and hardliners that are inept to define goals for civility that is subordinate to the divine aspirations for the tribalism of every man, women and child in what one as times reflects as the Levant - that is bizarre inertia - and so goes the faiths allcart ------
jja Manhattan, N.Y.
1
Why is it always incumbent on the United States to settle disputes that go back to the time we were fighting battles with spears and swords? And to add insult to injury America never knows which thug to support. Inevitably our decisions are always wrong.
We don't have a dog in the fight this time so it's time to back off. Let the combatants kill each other for a change.
1
That's a comment for a different America with different values and with statesmen, not immoral opportunists governing the country. But I must say, obviously Trump is a hopeless character, the real disappointment was Obama who can sound as if he has a moral center and some intellectual depth. By now we know better and it was Syria that made that quite clear.
What all of a sudden waking up to the genocide being committed against Syrian's by Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and Assad? Where were you when 1500 years of Christendom was being destroyed as well as Yazidis being raped and turned into slaves. But why thwart Iran Mr. Stephens, the last administration made us with the P5 +1 believe they could be trusted, as well as resetting ties with Russia. Where is the UN when its needed the most, and if they do nothing why do they continue to get U.S. Millions?
1
Bad guys on all sides. Sadly, when all the facts are weighed, it seems pretty clear that it OUR bad guys, in fact, who are the worst.
4
Bombing Assad’s resources in response to the attack will not prevent the attack or the catastrophic consequences Mr. Stephens described.
Sounds like even though he's making an argument for intervention on largely humanitarian grounds, the people of Idlib will be murdered, terrorized and displaced either way.
If that’s the case, might as well let Assad mop up the last of ISIS - and it seems like a fine idea to destroy Syria’s air force and Assad’s palaces afterwards as well.
However, while “removing” Assad would certainly burst Iran’s bubble, Syria may become a failed state, which would be fertile ground for militants to take root, leaving the Syrian people (and Syria's neighbors) in even more of a pickle.
If Iraq and Libya have taught us anything, it’s that we should leave dictators be - at least until they attack another country. America can assist opposition groups financially and logistically, we can even arm them, but if we win the revolution for them we’re left holding the bag. Who needs that tsuris?
3
The absence of a coherent strategy is consistent with the "transactional" approach to foreign policy. By its very nature, it is non-strategic. It reflects a checkers mentality in a world where the other major players are engaged in chess. Combine that with the Hobbesian world view of the incumbent (my apologies Thomas) and you have a tactical approach to foreign affairs that lacks any clear objectives. As a country, we have opted for leaders with less and less foreign policy experience until we've reached a point where we have one with less than none.
It appears that Mr. Stephens is in a hurry to have Bibi Netanyahu's plan in place, which is to blow up Iran, bomb its cities, murder millions of Iranians, and create millions of Iranian refugees heading for Europe. Why? According to Mr. Stephens, by doing so the US can stop Syrian and Russian attacks on Idlib (Interestingly, I have yet to hear Iranian involvement in Idlib). And, his rationale for doing that is to stop "A humanitarian catastrophe [that] is expected to follow, entailing mass casualties and another tidal wave of refugees [out of Idlib]." Indeed it takes a lot of chutzpah for Mr. Stephens to present such an inverted logic to NYT's readers.
My guess is that Mr. Stephens and company are starting to panic. They see November 6 election on the horizon and are afraid that, come November 7, Mr. Trump will be hamstrung and no longer capable of implementing Jerusalem's plans; that is, Democrats could win the House and Mr. Trump may lose its ability to wage wars anywhere, any time, he wants.
And, speaking of "a humanitarian catastrophe" and "mass casualties" and "tidal wave of refugees", I would like to know how many articles Mr. Stephens has written expressing his angst about the same issues when the US planes were relentlessly bombing Raqqa not too long ago. Or, when Saudis were bombing schools and hospitals in Yemen a few weeks ago. Or when the US planes bombed Iraqi cities into rubble, sortie after sortie, after sortie.
7
'The Trump administration has made clear that its top priority in the Middle East is to thwart Iran’s nuclear and regional ambitions. '
For the first, the US under Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal, offering no alternatives. Bad move.
For the second, if I understand correctly, the US is siding with the Sunni wing of Islam. Got it. Then why destroy Sunni-dominated Iraq?
As for the 'US Syria policy' - why does it have to have one? Does China have a Syria policy? Does India? Or Brazil?
The only policy the US should have is how to extricate itself from yet another potential quagmire, at the expense of - you guessed right - the Syrian people.
Bret Stephens hates Trump and thinks he should be impeached, but in the meantime, Stephens wants Trump to lead the U.S. into a ground war in Syria.
Democrats and liberals must never forget the craven nature of the neoconservative. This is a prime example. The neocon has been getting friendly with the Democrat (over their mutual dislike of Trump). The Neocons are now trying to parade their anti-Trump bonafides on left-leaning news, where they are often being held-up as heroes.
They are not heroes. They blew-up the middle east with their past advice. They often front for Israeli interests, and now Saudi Arabia. Their prior wars even led to the destabilization of Europe. They have an unhealthy obsession with one of the most stable nations in the region, Iran. They want to destabilize Iran and turn it into another failed state. Sociopaths masquerading as intellectuals.
Don't take the bait.
The Democrat should fight Trump and the neoconservative.
5
This column represents what was always the third way in Syria. The bifurcated choice was always between standing by and doing nothing vs being all in. The third was an acknowledgement that the problem in Syria could only be solved politically. In the meantime, the US along with those who would rally around us, would not permit genocide or the direct killing of civilians whether it came from Al Assad or ISIS. Obama blew it with the red line comment but when ISIS was ready to slaughter a group of Christians the US along with Kurdish troops pushed back on ISIS and allowed them to find safety. This was the model. It could have taken the form of no fly zones as well as safe zones.
If you're going to kill innocents, you will pay a price for it. That's the message.
Why should the USA intervene alone? Protecting the civilians of Idlib should be the duty of the United Nations, and a coalition of democratic free countries should get together and put boots on the ground. Then the Iranians, Russians and Syrians will think twice before attacking with the risk of causing a conflict with the “rest of the world” aligned against them. Coalitions have been built on much flimsier premises (see Iraq 2003), so why not now?
1
Why would the administration want to thwart it's controller's number one regional asset?
Mr. Stephens's policy proposal makes a lot of sense. First, it is doable, unlike so many other glib schemes put forward for Syria. Second, it reasserts a vital US presence in the region. Third, it will enhance US objectives in relations with the major states of the region - friends and foes. But President Trump cannot possibly preside over the roll-out and public explanation of such a policy, let alone defend its particulars over time. Therefore it is unlikely to be pursued.
One other comment: As awful as al-Assad and his allies are, they are guilty of mass murder and thus war crimes, but not of "genocide". They nonetheless deserve the worst that could happen to them.
I don't understand why there isn't more coverage of the failure of the anti-Assad resistance to unite, at least militarily. Why should we go on and on hearing about what Obama should have done when Syrians could not unite to save themselves?
@GaryMSB
To better understand why the "Syrians could not unite to save themselves" -- you'd have to first understand the difference between the Muslim sects, and the reign of terror instigated by Hafez al-Assad (Bashar's father), who ruthlessly clamped down on all dissent during his rule.
So, start there...Just a suggestion.
Let's compare Mr. Stephens' "dangerous regional gambit" against careful analysis of Zbigniew Brzezinski, someone whose sound strategic thinking was never in doubt and was among the few whose reputation as a foreign policy realist was not impugned by the outcome of Iraq's invasion.
"In the long run, contrary to the image projected by its ruling mullaha - that of a religiously fanatical society - Iran stands the best chance, of all countries in the region, of embarking on the path traced earlier by Turkey. It has a high literacy rate, an established tradition of significant female participation in professions and political life, a genuinely sophisticated intellectual class, and a social awareness of its distinctive historical identity. Once the dogmatic rule imposed by Ayatollah Khomeini wears thin and the Iranian secular elites sense that the West sees a regionally constructive role for Iran, Iran could be on the way toward successful modernization and democratization"
(The above is an excerpt from late Zbigniew Brzezinski's book: "The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership")
6
@Eddie B. -- Not to mention the fact that we set up the circumstances for the pendulum swing in Iran towards theocracy by covertly removing an elected ruler, Mossadegh, and propping up the Shah.
1
'And then there’s the United States, where two administrations have now allowed the Syrian crisis to become depressing testimony to the worthlessness of our word, the fickleness of our friendship and hollowness of our values. '
But didn't we totally achieve that by pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal?
3
There's no way to understand the reason why this administration is so reluctant to block Iran's most dangerous regional gambit, without first getting past Russia's involvement in Syria; since it is an avowed defender of Bashar al-Assad and it's own military interests in the area.
That's just one possible explanation of why Mr. Trump may be balking, especially given his obvious admiration for Russia and Vladimir Putin.
Another possible explanation is that this country is now on the verge of getting into so many conflicts worldwide, that taking on Iran would just open another can of worms; which would once again involve Russia, since they are both strategic allies, and recent U.S. sanctions on both countries has essentially made them close trade partners as well.
Then there's the question of Israel, which the U.S. has bent over backwards to appease, and Turkey, which even though it is still a NATO member, has sought closer relations with Russia and fears ending up with millions more Syrians at its borders.
In short. Syria is and has always been a political quagmire for the U.S., because there's no way to step into the fray without ruffling someone's feathers -- including our own.
1
@N. Smith -- I wish this were just a Trump thing. But we now have a half-century-long, bipartisan history of getting into quagmires. Vietnam -- Iraq -- Afghanistan -- Syria -- who's next?
At a time like this, when Assad finally seems close to reestablishing control over Syria (and thus perhaps ending the war), the probability of a manufactured 'chemical incident' is very high. There is no other way for the U.S. military to justify the escalation that will deprive Assad of victory.
It will probably happen very soon... how will the press react this time? If the pattern holds true we cannot expect much rational analysis.
1
This urges active support for al Qaeda and Sunni jihadi terrorism, just because it might for the moment frustrate Iran. This is no different than supporting bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Soviets. It is the same exact idea.
We need a longer view of American interests.
The current fixation on Iran is narrow and partisan, in service of narrow and partisan interests not a balanced view of all American interests.
Obama did better, but even he dared not do good enough. We ought not to fetishize the current Saudi autocrat, nor demonize Iran. They are mixed things, and the Saudis worse than the Iranians in many ways.
But then, this is really about service to Netanyahu's fixation on Iran. That in turn is how he diverts attention to get away with so much else.
Our neocons have other desires of their own for which this is misdirection, and they follow Netanuyahu's lead in using this. Wolfowitz called it aligning varied interests around a common message, even if the message is a lie (WMD in Iraq). They are doing it again.
There is nothing in Syria that would not be made better by ending the war, and that means ending the foreign support of jihadi terrorism.
11
@Mark Thomason
We don't just need a "longer view" but a "proper view" of U.S. interests. The anti-Iran obsession is an Israeli and now Saudi view. That needs to be repeated often. Good post
8
The right time to intervene in Syria was the day after Qaddafi was killed. We should have done to its government and military exactly what we did to Qaddafi's regime as soon as Qaddafi himself was out of the way. It was to prevent something like the Syrian Civil War that we intervened in Libya and by October 2011 it was clear into what the conflict was evolving. Had we publicly announced that we would do so ahead of time (starting the day after Qaddafi's capture of death) we might not actually have had to do it; Assad might have stepped down.
1
@Jason Galbraith
So, you want two failed states instead of one.
3
Putin doesn't want the US to do stop the Iranians from committing genocide in Idlib, so we won't. I'm sure there might be other reasons, but lets go with the simplest explanation. Putin controls Trump, and Trump is obviously doing Putin's bidding.
Also, Obama did incorrectly manage the Syrian situation, but let's get real, anything else he would have done would have been quickly criticized by all Republicans. Perhaps if G. Bush hadn't knocked off Iran's biggest rival; Iraq, then we wouldn't have to deal with Iranian expansion and imperialism.
3
Macarthur thought he could crush the North Koreans, and his incursion north of the official dividing line, the 38th Parallel, brought China (supported by the Soviet Union) into the war -- a short-term disaster for us.
You want us to continue taking sides in the Sunni-Shiite (and Wahhabi-moderate Muslim) war that was started by the House of Saud to buy peace with Saudi religious fanatics. This is even though it was Saudi Sunni religious fanatics who pulled 9/11, probably with the knowledge of at least some Saudi authorities, who remained in power.
The ayatollahs of Iran never asked for the religious war they are engaged in, and their support of groups like Hezbollah is, in geopolitical terms, their way of avoiding encirclement by hostile powers. The biggest enemy of the authoritarian Arab regimes, with which Israel now has an alliance, is the forces that produced the Arab Spring, forces that are naturally aligned with the Israeli and Palestinian forces that want a peaceful reconciliation. The alliance between Israel and its authoritarian neighbors will be cemented as Israel gives up all but dishonest lip service to its former ideals and puts its trust in power, propaganda, paranoia, and oppression.
3
"But American policymakers desperately need to learn how to find the middle road between overreaction and inaction"
Finding that middle ground tests the best of Presidents. Republicans elected the worst. Adjustments need to be made
“Mattis was particularly exasperated and alarmed, telling close associates that the president acted like — and had the understanding of — ‘a fifth- or sixth-grader,’”
- from "Fear"
Interveming in Syria is no job for an emotionallly unstable narcissist with a 5th grade intellect and anger management issues.
Keeping Trump away from any activities that might literally blow up in our face is the only sane choice.
3
Contradictions abound in Mr. Stephens column, including criminal intent.
Want to "thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions"? Oh, well, that was JCPOA, but your own Mr. Trump killed it.
Want to assassinate Bashir Assad? Go ahead, see where that gets you. There have been hundreds of assassinations (see Ronen Bergman) and things are far worse, not better.
The fundamental problem with the right wing in the USA today is that they cannot think any more clearly than the John Bircher's of the 1960s. There are enemies everywhere. We have to nuke them all. Paranoia and militarism are sky high.
After $6 trillion spent on the destruction of Iraq, and a few miscellaneous hundreds of billions in the destruction of Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, parts of Lebanon, and Gaza, what more have you got? Are you better off now than 20 years ago?
Russia has shown detailed plans for the "white helmets" in Syria to fake a chemical weapons attack and blame it on Assad. This may be true, may be not. But, there is only one country, one and only one country, in the Middle East that profits for this destruction. And, it's not us. But we pay for it.
Recently, in the Israeli press, there was the admission that Israel has aided the terrorists in Syrian fighting against the Syrian government. The US press missed reporting on this.
Mr. Stephens, maybe this can be your next column: Israeli weapons, medical aid, and support for terrorists fighting in Syria.
6
Entering the conflict as Mr. Stephens suggests certainly would not benefit the United States. Qui bono? Israel, of course. Is there any reason why Mr Stephens would place Israel's interests above those of the United States?
8
@Mike Murray MD
How does Israel benefit? It would now have Iranian proxies on its Northern border. This was noted in the article.
We had our chance in 2012-2013 to prevent this. Putin offered to broker a deal bringing both sides to form a government. In the process, Assad would side out. About 10,000 had been killed in the conflict. Obama turned his back on it. Since that time 300,000-500,000 have died and we’ve had the worst refugee crisis since WW II. ISIS spread throughout Iraq and Syria Putin became firmly entrenched in Syria. Obama claimed he had “contained” ISIS. The next day Paris happened and shortly thereafter, San Bernardino. Obama said he was going to bomb Syria for use of chemical weapons but didn't. In the meantime, Russia came in and has no intention of leaving. That was what Trump inherited. Does anyone think he wouldn't have grabbed at the offer from Putin that Obama turned down? When Assad used gas, he didn't hesitate. He sent in the bombers and didn't notify or ask permission from anyone including Russia. He just recently warned everyone, if gas is used in Idlib, we would strike quickly. As far as ISIS is concerned, the NYT acknowledged that Trump gets the credit for the defeat of the ISIS Islamic State. By the end of 2016, Russia is firmly present in Syria. and no one is going to push them out. We lost our opportunity by 2013. But at least now, ISIS no longer a power in Iraq and Syria and Trump has sent a message there are limits to what Syria, Iran, and Russia can do.
Americans have become weary of fighting never ending wars in foreign lands so that one autocratic thug can replace another. The middle east is a cesspool of ignorance and tribalism. There isn’t a single Washington or Lincoln among them and if there were someone would surely slit their throat. Nothing will ever change there. In the next hundred years Idlib will be taken, retaken, taken again... until it becomes nothing more than a pile of rubble. America should take no part in constructing such a monument.
To thwart Israel, save part of Germany for the Jewish state.
To thwart Saudi Arabia, save the Shia Muslim Arabs and Persians.
To thwart Egypt, save civil secular plural egalitarian democratic rule.
Who is going to save Idlib by putting on an American military uniform and heading into harms way? Bret Stephens, Trump and sons, Cornyn, Kyl, Ryan, McConnell, Pence, Hannity, Carlson, Paul, Scott, Kushner, Emanuel etc.?
7
Save part of Germany for the Jewish state? Seriously?? -I can't believe the alternative world you live in Black Mamba. For starters there is no Germany in the Torah. Next year in Berlin just doesn't work at Passover.
Why is it that the major Jewish holidays bring out the worst in everyone?
The most shocking thing to me in your fine article is the fact that we have grown used to a president who governs and sets foreign policy via tweet. This is so crazy we should be standing up and protesting about it daily, but we have become used to it and accept it.
1
It is obvious the Trump administration is quite fine with Assad taking out Idlib and its mix of terrorists and democratic critics.
More Muslim refugees leads to more support of hard right wing allies in the west and Erdogan wore out his welcome.
Conveniently attacking the remnants of ISIS on the other side of the country at the same time, further muddies a confusing narrative and helps Assad, sending nice message to go along with fulsome praise so often tweeted out to other tyrants with their own annoying liberal critics.
And if Assad goes over the line at some point, another farcical cruise missile attack is a tailor made "tough guy" distraction for a bozo in a Mueller / Midterm morass.
Under this administration, the US is no more a supporter of democratic ideals abroad, than it is at home.
I generally agree, unfortunately.
And while I'd point out that when Obama asked Congress for authorization to go after Assad, Congress left town and stayed there a while, and I get that Stephens thinks Presidents sometimes need to just go for it, I think it's fair at least to question whether a little of Trump's arrogance and stupidity might have helped Obama quite a lot.
But as for Trumpy himself, he's not gonna do jack. In the first place, he's already forgotten about the whole thing, just as he's essentially forgotten about the DPRK. If it gets into the news bigly, he might do something spasmodic (especially if he figures he needs the distraction), but really any actual action would come from Mattis or from Bolton.
It's hard to accept fully, but the fact is that Trump...doesn't...care about any of this. It's all just stuff he bellows about to impress the rubes and sell stuff. Seriously, as far as I can tell anything and everything's just a selling tactic, and mostly what he's selling is his re-election and stranglehold on power.
People don't matter to this guy. Israel don't matter. This country don't matter. What matters to Trump is Trump.
1
The reveal in this sorry scenario is that Trump, who sold himself to credulous voters as a master of negotiation and deal-making, is nothing of the kind. His diplomacy, which doesn't really rise to the meaning of the word, is a combination of TV reality show posturing and real estate sales hustle. It isn't working. It won't ever work. Trump is safe only at the shallow end of the pool, performing his act in front of his slavish admirers. When it comes to savvy, forward-thinking long-term statecraft, he is far beyond his depth, and his team (Bolton, Pompeo & Co.) cannot control or undo the damage being wrought by his blundering ineptitude.
The time to strike at Assad's air force was when Assad started using it to bomb civilian targets, at the very beginning of the conflict and years before Putin saw an opportunity to increase his influence in the region. Now the situation is a great deal more complicated. It is not obvious that the US has the capability of destroying airfields and airplanes without also killing Russian personnel. Besides the bombing of Idlib is being carried mostly by Russians. The question to ask is whether the US national interest in Syria is worth the possibility of a major conflict with Russia. The country that has most at stake is Turkey, yet Erdogan prefers fighting the Kurds rather than Assad, Iran and Russia.
16
@serban Right on the money. A no-fly zone to pen Assad in, as was done in Iraq to protect the Kurds. Too late now.
Good comment, serban.
How about we concentrate on saving the USA and leave the ROW alone for a change. We have brought nothing but death and destruction to the Middle East and continued military intervention is insanity, nothing less. Meanwhile, we have more than enough problems to solve in the USA and the Western Hemisphere to keep us occupied for a several generations.
3
Oh, little things like sharing the same small planet, where our allies are, where oil comes from, the Suez Canal, Europe's a,ready got a serious refugee problem, stuff like that.
Nothing to worry our pretty little heads over, I expect.
Absolutely agree with you. I hope we establish reliable zones of influence in the Kurdish areas of Syria and Iraq. The Kurds actually like us, our military likes them, they have fought alongside Americans against ISIS, and this Administrations seems disinclined to continue to support governments like the present one in Iraq who continue to demand our aid and support while their government includes Shiite militias who attack American troops.
I could not disagree more with Mr. Stephens. The chances for the action he proposes to quickly escalate way beyond our intended mission is extremely high.
He is proposing a major act of war by the US in an incredibly complex situation where two sophisticated and highly capable militaries intersect with various militias. Among those militias are an estimated 10,000 al Queda fighters - remember them? Mr. Stephens is in essence asking the US to defend al Queda against Assad, Iran and Russia.
And of course, he fails to imagine "what comes next?"
Mr. Obama, while cognizant of the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria, had the wisdom to stay out of it and perhaps avoid an even deeper one, even while fending off his hawkish Secretary of State who was chomping at the bit to jump into that morass.
Trump's avoiding this mess has nothing to do with decency or wisdom. But even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
3
Mr. Stephens doesn't seem to realize that Idlib is a lost cause and that Assad (along with Russian & Iran) have won the day. If US wants to help mitigate human suffering they should plan for how to deal with the mass flow of immigrants that are going to overwhelm Turkey and Europe.
The more relevant question is what is US going to do when Assad tries to reclaim eastern Syria from Kurdish & US control? In that upcoming struggle US is going to be up against not only Assad, Russia and Iran, but also Turkey who view the YPG Kurds as a franchise of the PKK terrorist organization.
4
All of which begs the question: Why is it necessary for the United States to thwart Iran? Looking beneath the surface, the answer is clear: Because that's what Saudi Arabia and Israel want. In essence, Stephens and the foreign policy establishment are calling for the U.S. to be an instrument of Saudi and Israeli policy goals. That the cost in terms of treasure and lives will be immense seems to matter little, while the benefits to the United States are dubious at best. The only beneficiaries would be our client states, who want to preserve their dominance in the region.
American foreign policy must serve American interests. Treating Iran as an enemy, because it is a rival to our supposed allies in the Middle East, does not meet that standard. Arguments that Iran poses a threat to the U.S. are pure fear mongering nonsense and should be ignored. The same holds true for Israel. As for Saudi Arabia, one of the most despotic regimes in the world, they can stop demonizing Shia Muslims and try to live in peace with Iran.
14
DJT is Vlad’s ventriloquist dummy. So don’t expect any independent action from him. But you’re right about one thing. Both Barack Obama and our odious Oval Office occupant bear responsibility for the unimaginable human suffering that’s still underway in Syria. It is (and will always remain) an awful stain on their presidencies.
3
@Zareen
I actually consider the regime which has been brutalizing the Syrian people to be the party which bears responsibility.
"The Trump administration has made clear that its top priority in the Middle East is to thwart Iran’s nuclear and regional ambitions."
How does a columnist write that a couple of days after September 11? So our top priority in the ME is not the absolute and utter destruction of IS and Al Qaeda? If not, why not? Are they not the actual entities that have actually attacked western interests and lands over the past two decades?
Note that it is Iran, Russia, and above all Syria's govts that are taking on the terrorists while western governments seems to have other fish to fry ... Why?
6
Obama's mistake was in giving the Syrians a green light to enact an Arab Spring overthrow in Syria, implying the United States would aid them. We did not, and that was the tragic mistake. Assad will end up right back where he was, except the country is destroyed, its people are refugees, all because of the cheering on of the United States early on - and as the fighting wore on, it became too late to stop.
5
You’re absolutely right. And it’s reprehensible.
1
@DLP I suspect it was more than cheering...Who paid for all that ....as Joe Strummer would sing..."guns and and ammunition"
2
I am Jewish and Canadian and in these Days of Awe I look at Iran and the USA and am dumbfounded by all the disconnects. Iran is the most Western of all the nations of the the Middle East. I can't help but think that if in 1953 we had welcomed Iran into the Western Alliance of democratically elected governments we would now talk of the EU as an alliance an alliance of nations led France, Germany, Great Britain and Iran.
We live in a world where even Israel believes in a Iran party to the Iran agreement on nuclear nonproliferation.
Iran needs not our condemnation but our love. Its diverse, urban and educated population is ready to join us. Its people are more than ready to join us in a new world of peace order and good governance and yet we insist that Iran continues to be dominated by its Trumpist minority. To see the future under GOP rule we don't need a crystal ball all we need is to look at Iran and the government we in our ignorance forced upon them.
Iran was a collection of city states and it is we that made Iran a theocracy under rule of their "moral majority." A majority of those most in need of autocracy and the command of a nonexistent watchful eye of a deity.
6
It's still amusing watching the Middle East-obsessed neocons of the last decade, like Bret, try to talk Trump into leading a war in Syria while also trying to impeach him.
Greedy and foolhardy.
4
We have no coherent policy for Syria or Iraq. Until we have some kind of realistic plan for after intervention, we might as well just stay out of it. We already caused enough chaos since 2003 in that vicinity. Enough is enough. Not all revolutions are successful, just ask the Confederate States of America.
3
Bret, remember what was the rationale given by George was for his ill advised invasion of Iraq? We do it in Iraq so we do not have to do it in our homeland. Syria, Russia, and Iran used the same rationale and now they have most of the terrorists in one area, Idlib. The ones who helped these terrorist to come in Syria are also in a bind (Turkey). Assad is no angel and must be reckoned with. But first things first. Let us get rid of these 10 K to 30+K ISIS, Al-Qaeda types so they are not able to create any trouble for the rest of the world. Either the trump administration should look the other way and stop providing any direct or indirect assistance to them or openly let others such as Turkey, UAE, Jordan, Israel, and Saudis know that they would be sanctioned if they interfere in eradication of evil/terrorists.
Once the job is completed by Syria, Russia, and Iran lets sit down and draw up the democratic constitution for new Syria as proposed by the Astana agreement.
If saving Idlib is to save our assets in the form of ISIS and Al-Qaeda affiliates that would certainly be a big mistake on our part. Civilians/non combatants must be spared and a passage could be worked out for individuals who want to move south into Syria back to their own homes.
21
@Wizarat
Too late. ISIS has already repopulated in Africa.
But Trump will deny that, of course.
Appealing thought, but to do what the author is recommending would be to become Idlib's protector -- indefinitely. It would have to have broad based support that could withstand administration changes. It should have ally support. Are these elements in place?
Assad learned his lesson well from his father who destroyed an entire city and no one in the world did anything so why should he bother with niceties? He’ll destroy Idlib and “take back” his country.
2
When Obama's red line was crossed and nothing happened this was a done deal. Russia is there now and we cannot do what Stephens suggests without getting into a conflict with Russia. 7000 modernized nuclear weapons say we stay out of it. So do I.
If memory serves correctly, the pro-war anti-Assad contingent in Congress was calling for U.S. military intervention into Syria in 2013 when President Obama sought official Congressional approval and backing in the form of an AUMF. But the Republicans controlling Congress, not wanting to take a firm stance, declined to hold a vote.
That the Republican "war hawks" would not officially back the President to use military force sent a message to Tehran that America really wasn't up to the job.
And today it looks like nothing has changed. We are a house divided.
4
This problem is so complicated.
.
Does Mr. Stephens propose unilateral US intervention?
If so, how many soldiers does he propose to deploy?
If not, then which allies will?
.
Turkey, the beacon of democracy, and patron of IS?
Saudi Arabia - patron of the Taliban, A-Q, Al-N, Al-S, B-H, etc., the progenitor of democracy in Yemen and Bahrain ...?
.
The Kurds are a good choice, but logistically and politically problematic. The Euphrates is a long way from Idlib, and the Turkish army - which won't fight Assad - has thrice prevented the Kurds from liberating land west of the Euphrates.
.
Mr. Stephen's characterisation of a "Shiite arc" is propaganda, too. It is really an area from which Wahabbi nuts have been ejected. Iran's logic there is easy to understand, matches Russia's view, and matches the hard lessons of the US Army in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.
.
It is a sad day when you have to admit that Iran is the most sane adult in the room.
.
The war in Syria was lost when our "allies" in Saudi and Turkey decided, 6 years ago, made it a higher priority to kill democratic reformers in the FSA than to fight Assad.
.
It was lost when Turkey made it a higher priority to fight the Kurds than to fight IS.
.
It was lost when Saudi made it a higher priority to bomb Yemenis than to shoot down Russian aircraft and Syrian helicopters delivering barrel bombs.
.
The war was lost in Riyadh and Istanbul.
With friends like these ...
.
Saudi Arabia is our enemy, not out ally.
5
Places we have lately made safer for democracy in the middle east by military action.
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
Somalia
But this time, scouts honor, will be different.
What would our shattered cities look like if a tenth of the money wasted there had been invested here?
We need legislation that defunds these adventures and directs them to our schools, healthcare, alternative energy, and cities.
How can we be so criminally stupid repeating the same mistake again and again?
17
@Lawrence You have to consider the possibility that it isn't a mistake. Sure, if you think our interventions were meant to bring democracy and had humanitarian motives, we look like murderous incompetent fools. But maybe the purpose was something else. In the case of Syria, no sane person would have thought pouring weapons into that country would bring about a happy ending. But that wasn't the point. The point was to give Iran and Russia their Vietnam.
Plus there are a very large number of people who make money selling weapons or selling policies that require people to buy weapons.
The problem in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, is that there are very bad guys on both sides. If you do anything at all, you will be helping bad guys. So which bad guys do you want to help ?
Hence, Obama's reluctance to get involved. Stephens makes the absurd argument that somehow, we can enforce the "careful" invasion of Idlib. A "careful invasion" is an oxymoron.
44
@NIck
"... there are very bad guys on both sides."
.
"Both"?
.
There are a lot more than two sides.
3
If the result in Syria is a total win for Assad/Russia/Iran, does anyone really think the region will be more peaceful? Assad and his allies will have little need to negotiate. They, and Hezbollah, will also have an enhanced ability to confront Israel. Given that it was Assad and his allies who caused most of the casualties in the Syrian conflict, does anyone really think the vast number of refugees who left Syria will rush to return?
Leave Syria alone.
Leave Iran alone.
The job of our Government is to protect the rights of the (living breathing) people of the United States.
20
How about flipping the script in the most un-Trumpist manner possible. Focus on:
1. Becoming the shining city on a hill, a beacon of democracy, freedom, unwavering respect for the dignity and human rights of citizens and non-citizens within our borders, bastion of justice for poor and rich; Christian, Jew, Muslum, Hindu, and atheist; white, brown, black, and turquoise; man, woman, and whatever; protector of the weak, the children, the disabled, the marginalized.
2. Remain militarily strong enough to protect our land, safeguard our borders, and acquire the intelligence necessary to thwart the cleverest enemy.
3. Warn off any foreign entity that would tamper with our democratic processes with the promise that our technological superiority will send their every computer back to 1960.
4. Lead the way in the worldwide battle to diminish the worst effects of climate change and global mass migration, consistent with our aforesaid commitment to human dignity and human survival.
Until these initiatives are in place, lets's just keep our tarnished noses out of other people's sovereignty. We have no standing to intervene.
15
Mr. Stephens should call out the reality of the tragic situation in Idlib. Trump will never do anything meaningful to thwart the assault. The reason is obvious: the murdering criminal, Assad, is allied with another murdering thug, Putin. Trump is Putin's lap dog (remember his pathetic, weak performance in Helsinki where he slobbered all over Putin and trashed his own government agencies) and will do nothing to confront him in any way.
4
Exactly right, except that perhaps our first move should be to decapitate the Syrian regime.
I understand that it's an odious comparison, but in his last days Hitler used to push imaginary divisions around his war maps.
Mr. Trump will do nothing to stop Assad from reconquering Idlib, with the loss of tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives, most of them civilians.
He does not read Mr. Stephens' column, because among other reasons he is functionally illiterate.
He does not care what happens in sh*thole countries, among which he certainly counts Syria even though it was reasonably prosperous, with a highly educated populace.
Assad and his puppet masters (Putin and Khamenei) will reunite Syria as an Alawite dictatorship, and at least until the United States has a different administration nothing will be done to stop them.
Trump and his ephemeral, whiny tweets do not count for anything, on this or any other matter of substance.
Dan Kravitz
1
Its late but it is never too late to get off the wrong road.
The Russians, Iranians and Assad's Syrian government are about to attack 3.5 million refugees they have driven into Idlib province on the Turkish border. This will entail mass casualties but it is only part of the horror about to unfold.
The real goal of Russia and Iran and Syria is to drive these civilian refugees out of Syria, and the thousands of terrorist fighters hiding among them, into Turkey and Europe and destabilize them as well. Russia and Iran made this clear last week when they refused to work with Turkey to devise and implement a peaceful solution to sort out the terrorist fighters and resettle the vetted civilian refugees back into Syria.
Turkey cannot stop this attack nor absorb 3.5 million more refugees by itself. Instead Turkey needs help now from its European and American NATO allies to stop this attack and devise a peaceful solution to resettle in their own homes in Syria.
NATO certainly has the capability and resources to quickly enforce a standstill arrangement with respect to Idlib if the affected NATO powers agree to cooperate and do so. And with a standstill arrangement in place in Idlib, there would then be time to open and conduct a dialogue with the Russian, Iranian and Syrian side to work out and implement a viable sorting out and resettlement program for returning the Syrian civilian refugees to their homes.
2
Bret, your words are falling on deaf ears, no cares for the rebels in Syria. The only way to bring the danger to the attention of the World is to have Israel defend the encircled rebels, then the world will rise up a condemn Israel. Otherwise, Assad's atrocities will pass unnoticed.
2
@Joe Blow Right. Nobody ever writes a word about Syria. And the world has flocked to arm Hamas so they could fight Israel on equal terms, leading to a war with hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides.
There is a difference between how the world treats Israel and how it treats Syria--Syria has been treated as a battleground where the US, Turkey, the Saudis, Iran, Israel, and Russia can fight a proxy war. I somehow doubt you wish the same for Israel. You just think that words of criticism aimed at Israel is worse than arming rebels and demolishing cities, and by the way, both Russia and the US have demolished cities in Syria.
1
I'm not sure why the US is making Iran out as the bogey man in the ME. Iran militia's not the USA or Russia defeated ISIS.
Saudi Arabia attacked us on 9/11. They are committing war crimes which are at best the equal to Assad in Yemen.
Clearly Iran's clerics are a problem but they are no more a threat than the radical Islam that Saudi Arabia has been exporting for for decades.
It's time for the USA to become an honest broker in the ME. That includes open dialogue and peace with Iran and Saudi Arabia.
We have had 6 Presidents since the hostage crisis. The one where the Canadians hid some of our diplomats and probably saved their lives. The same Canada that took in thousands of Americans on 9/11 when flights couldn't land in the US. If we can tariff Canadian Steel and Aluminum for national security reasons we can make peace with Iran.
9
@HL
By all accounts, the vast majority of casualties in Syria were caused by Assad's forces, supported by Iran and Russia. According to the UN, Iran spends at least $6 billion dollars annually supporting Assad.
1
Want2know
The US spent around a Trillion dollars in direct expenses for the Iraq war. Estimates of as much as 3 trillion in total costs. Well over 200,000 civilian deaths occurred as a result of that war. The US actively supported the Sunni insurgency that was instrumental in ratcheting up the destabilization of Syria.
Isn't there enough blood on everyone's hands to stop pointing fingers.
@Want2know
IRL:
Syrian "Civil War" [sic] casualties (last time i checked, months ago):
"Pro-government forces reportedly killed [SOHR]: 114,536 - 163,828
Opposition forces ["rebels"/salafist jihadists/al Qaeda-linked terrorists] reportedly killed [SOHR]: 110,811 –146,811
Civilians reportedly killed : 96,073–103,648 [SOHR] / 106,751 [Violations Documenting Center]
ISIS/ISIL/Daesh forces reportedly killed: 11,522+ [SOHR] - 20,711+ [SAA & YPG]
(wikipedia, Syrian_Civil_War)
[then Vice President of the United States] "Joe Biden [at Harvard’s Kennedy School, October 2014]: “our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria … The Turks (...), the Saudis, the emirates [add Qatar], etc., what were they doing? They were so determined to take down [Syrian government] Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia [sectarian] war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad, except the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.” (youtube, watch?v=dcKVCtg5dxM&t=53m20s)
Sounds like the right is preparing the groundwork for a pre mid-term strike to bolster Trump and the GOP.
6
The day Bret Stephens volunteers for combat or other front-line duty in Idlib is the day I or anybody else will begin to take him seriously.
20
Sad. A military maneuver will ultimately take a diplomatic/political answer. Supporting the Trumpublicans, who are in goose-step with all military advancements, has simultaneously emptied the State department. Stephens is on board with this, and I'm sure his joking back and forth with a liberal columnist will reflect, jokingly, how funny this all is. Aggressive actions with Russia, and conciliatory talk from Trump, and a flash point in Iran's neighborhood, where we are dug in. We have blown the nuclear deal with Iran on a Bolton belligerent whim, and the Trumpublicans are right on board. What's a superpower without an endgame, other than "I get mine"?
I have never understood where the money for the rebellion in Syria came from; all those guns, bullets, uniforms, etc didn't just appear, and it has all gone on a long time.
I have a suspicion that it was primarily from Israel and the US, with maybe a couple of Arab states thrown in. Can anyone shed light on this?
7
@Jack Walsh
And where did the money and weapons to support Assad come from, and the Russian warplanes, pilots and missiles. It would be interesting to determine to which side the overwhelming majority of money and material went?
@Jack Walsh I think the biggest chunk came from the Saudis, but the US has supplied quite a bit. What is funny in a horrifying way is the fact that the American discussion has been over our lack of intervention. Apparently if we only pour weapons into the hands of rebels we aren't intervening. We have strange standards.
1
@Jack Walsh I will give you a few hints. Where does most of the world's heroin come from? What country have we had our military in since 2001? What intelligence agency has a known track record for trafficking in narcotics to fund their black ops around the world?
To thwart Iran, save Idlib.
Why would we want to thwart Iran? That's Israel's problem.
11
Obama/Clinton were wrong to expect a "Lybia" to happen in Syria. They lured the Arabs in Homs into protest with sound-bites of support, and then let them get gassed and bombed. In the detritus that remained, ISIS poured in from Iraq, and American taxpayers have had to support Russia and Assad in butchering innocents as they smite the villains. Even Turkey has gotten in some shots against the poor Kurds. Worry not. We have Trump coming to the rescue. He's throwing Iran into Russia's waiting arms so that the Ruskies can help Persia build a nice bomb. What a blundering mess.
Idlib as of August 22, 2018, according to Bret McGurk, White House Envoy, was “The Largest Al Qaeda Safe Haven Since 9/11”. So what has changed? Nothing. But the neocons, in sensing yet another foreign policy disaster with the defeat of their terrorist proxies in Syria, now agitate with Israel-inspired anti-Iran rhetoric to postpone the inevitable, and at the risk of war with Russia. Indeed, for them, it is not "at the risk of," it is "in hope for," and that is what should scare us all.
11
This isn't as bad as Nikki Haley's bombastic non sense. Its still the same, Syria is a sovereign country that has had violent jihadists steal the revolution from moderate forces that were unable to defeat Assad. Now al Qaeda and ISIS entered the struggle and turned it into a human disaster that is destabilizing the region and opened a major haven for terrorists.
3
It's past time for us to withdraw from wars and battles in the mideast and to leave the people there to work out their own liberation. That's an idea that won Donald Trump the presidency.
4
Demonizing the Assad government for its goal of ridding the last pocket of resistance in the nation's northeast is tantamount to urging the U.S. government, were, let's say, Texas still being controlled by the Confederacy, to allowing such a situation to continue without a response. The policies implemented by the U.S. in the Middle East have contributed to the deterioration if not total destruction of the concepts of national sovereignty, adherence to international law or the commitments made to principles spelled out in the United Nations charter. The fallout of this foreign policy has had further tragic consequences for the rule of law here at home. We
7
This state of constant war has become normalized since the end of WWII. What is the purpose of the UN if it no longer takes up the protection of those unable to protect themselves as in Syria? All this talk of our interests, we’ve heard it before in Vietnam and Iraq. My thoughts; all those in Washington in support of military interventions with military age children, draft them into front line service. We would probably see a more thought going in, a lot less fighting, and when we did choose to fight there would be an end to it.
What does Bret Stephens want in Idlib? He says America’s objective is NOT to “dictate Syria’s future or solve its problems.” Nor to fight the “bad rebels” while supporting the “more moderate ones.” There would be no “Iraq II.”
Of course not. Bashar al-Assad seems more fortunate than Saddam Hussein, and he has Russia's strategic interest in his country to thank for.
Stehpens is urging the Trump administration - in addition to the reimposed sanctions against Tehran - to curb Iran’s influence in the region and to prevent “a Shiite crescent stretching from Bandar Abbas on the Persian Gulf to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon.”
While seeking to drive Iran out of Syria, he feels comfortable with Russia’s presence in the country, just because it doesn’t pose a threat to Israel.
His advice - “American policymakers desperately need to learn how to find the middle road between overreaction and inaction; between a missionary zeal to solve other people’s agonies and the illusion that we can remain aloof from them” - reminds of Obama’s leading-from-behind strategy.
While Stephens was an Obama basher, he now accuses Trump of repeating "his predecessor's worst policy mistake." Perhaps this mistake could still be a blessing in disguise.
6
Leave it to Bret Stephens to inadvertently make the Trump administration look prudent. What's your solution, Bret, institute a "No Fly" zone or put many more US boots on the ground? And do you think for one minute that Syria, Iran, and most importantly, Russia, would allow that? Sure let's throw some more fuel on the fire. Perhaps we should encourage Israel to be even more assertive? Are there even more sanctions we could impose that would cause Assad, Iran and Russia to stand down? Or perhaps we just need to ramp up our threats so that the bad guys know we really mean it this time?
3
I'm scratching my head...trying to come up with a "middle road between overreaction and inaction".
We've basically given up on diplomacy as it is defined in the dictionary (or in the State Department). Brinkmanship doesn't count. We've pulled out of the Iran agreement and are backing them into a corner with new sanctions. What exactly is our leverage with Russia? Apparently they were not moved by Trump's warning. Europe? Didn't we burned that bridge after pulling out of the Iran agreement and imposing tariffs?
Who would join the US in a new agreement? We seem to have blown up all our bridges...while we were still on them.
9
The militia actors in Idlib are a diverse bunch. Some truly wanted to rid Syria of Assad and create a democracy, but others only want jihad, not really mattering who they fight. Here in lies the problem. My guess is that Russia, Syria and Iran recognize that without killing these jihadists, they will return to fight another day after day after day.
On top of these bad guys, Turkey is caught in the middle through total fault of their own. They change colors more than a traffic light. They are supplying the rebels of Idlib with weapons to prolong the battle against Iran, Russia and Syria.
The Kurds, however, are a people who need their own country. They are capable of defending their own borders provided that Turkey back off their erroneous claims against them. They were the US bulwark against ISIS and they managed to create a democratic-ish country with high goals and aspirations.
Since Turkey cannot be trusted, and Iran and Russia are no match for the US might, we should swing our support to an independent Kurdistan and protect them from the Turkish Army. By letting the Kurds and Israelis establish democratic bastions in the Middle East, we may have some shot at stability. This window is closing rapidly.
1
During the second world war, the United States allied with the Soviets to defeat the greater evil of Nazi Germany, then spent the next several decades trying to thwart the Soviet Union. At least the cold war had the benefit of being cold, and not hot with nukes and artillery flying in both directions.
With Syria, whose side do we want to take - ISIS or Hezbollah? If ISIS is the greater evil, then the best policy may be to stay out of the way while Assad, Russia, Iran, and their proxies eliminate the remainder of ISIS. In other words, nothing. Better to deal with Devil's we know rather than a chaotic failed state like post Soviet invasion Afghanistan, where no one is in charge. Iran and Russia are at least willing to come to the table, even if Trump has no idea how to negotiate.
60
@Zahir Virani
If Iran, Russia and Assad succeed, what need will they have to come to any table?
Why are neoconservatives like Bret Stephens so obsessed with the threat Iran poses? Why were they so obsessed with the imaginary threat Saddam Hussein posed? Why can’t they admit that by removing Saddam—Iran’s implacable enemy—we/they have empowered Iran?
6
I dunno, we got our crumbling infrastructure, our opioid crisis, our kids taking out huge loans for an education, many people without healthcare, working people who can't afford housing, etc. With all that, do we really need more war?
32
@Tom, war is more fun -- if you're that kind of person -- and much easier to manage -- if you're not very competent. (No need to point to recent examples.)
1
Where is European support in this situation? They will be the ones to face another mass exodus of refugees. Of course, this is what Russia is bargaining on as it will further fragment the continent and strengthen the far right elements. The solution here lies right at the door to the Kremlin. Having the major European countries, along with Turkey, acting together is ideal but not at all likely. Too bad that this is the time when US leadership is almost non existant.
What you have failed to write about is that Idlib is now the refuge of the most violent remnants of Sunni Islamic terrorism, including the last refuge in the region of al Quaeda.
Now that we have them in a pocket, what do you suggest; we sent in some missionaries?
www.InquiryAbraham.com
5
Where is the U.N.?
2
The reason for the Trump administration's reluctance to block Iran's dangerous regional gambit, Mr. Stephens, is because our president takes his orders from the Kremlin, and since Putin has allied himself with Assad and Iran, he has told his useful idiot to stay out of it.
4
Easy. Putin is on Dr. Chem Warfare's side. Trump daren't go against Vlad on this one.
The U.S has no authority to take unilateral action like this. U.S.A's "core foreign policy objectives" that Mr.Stephens (whose many other articles I have admired and supported) elucidates, unfortunately, mean disaster for the nation where the intervention however well-meaning is planned. If the U.S foreign office is really determined to tackle international affairs responsibly then they should nail a large golden plaque all over the White House and Foggy Bottom which reads " The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Mr.Stephens attempts to issue a caveat with the paragraph that starts with "what the objective is not, is... " I'm afraid it is much beyond the U.S.A of today to have the heart or competence to negotiate in Asian and Middle East issues without wreaking more damage. If you really want to avert humanitarian crises , then you have to seriously undertake the herculean task of making the U.N stronger and more justice-minded - and it is then the U.N which should be the Big Brother , not the U.S. But that is a logisitical mountain - who wants to do those kind of crazy things when it is much easier to be John Wayne who only wants to achieve "core foreign policy objectives".
1
No UNSC or congressional authorization for an American presence in Syria.! Does Stephens think we're totally dumb?
9
You're right, autodiddy. Where is the legal authority for intervention?
3
I think Mr. Stephens is correct. Shocker, Trump wants all the power of the Oval Office but none of the tough decision making. He criticizes Obama, yet does not change course. Of course, neither does his cabinet. While we don't want a world war, we cannot let innocent lives be lost to a horrible dictator. If we truly stand by the extreme right of Israel, like Trump says, we need to stand against Iran. But, of course, we only stand by the extreme right of Israel because the GOP wants the right-wing votes in the US. The US has military force, yet simply throws money at it to enrich big corporations. Let's actually do something good and stop this murderous regime once and for all.
16
@Anthony
"we only stand by the extreme right of Israel because the GOP wants the right-wing votes in the US. The US has military force, yet simply throws money at it to enrich big corporations."
The usual conspiracy theories powered by the usual telepathic powers.
Anthony, are you sending your sons to die in the desert thwarting Iran?
8
@Anthony:What do you think we did/doing in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and a host of African countries?. You know how we beat ISS in Raqqa? by destroying everything in Raqqa including sending millions of refugees into Europe.
1
Given Trump's love of dictators and his bromance with Putin, is it any wonder that Syria is all but lost?
The Trump administration's number one goal in the middle east is to keep Bibbi in power in Israel. That is why they have such an upside down approach to everything that involves the M.E. Bibbi thinks that Iran is enemy #1 and Trump knows nothing. Assad who?
5
The countdown for draft-evading cowards to play fatal war games had begun two years ago. NYTimes' readers know the stakes. Does Bret?
3
After all the crocodile tears about humanitarian catastrophe etc., are dispensed with, what remains is a dark, sinister suggestion to teach Iran a lesson for the appeasement of Saudi Arabia and Israel at the expense of Syria and its people AND this is advanced as a "policy". Nothing new; the MSM have been advancing this narrative for a long time. "Have you no sense of shame, Sir?"
5
Yes, let's fight with our allies ISIS and ... keep the Global War on Terror going for fun and profit.
3
More US wars in the Middle East? No thank you.
6
Wow. Now I've heard it all. By advocating twarting Iran, the author is willing to let a cancer grow in Syria. Idlib has the highest terrorists per capita in the world. We have spent countless trillions fighting these types to no avail. Yet here they are, in a nice little spot on earth, but Mr. Stephens is advocating blocking the only just action sanity calls for: the annihilation of these terrorists. His plan is justified only on a desire to thwart Iran and has nothing to do with eliminating the source of terrorist threat. He is more inclined to do Israel's bidding than help the world get rid of a bunch of despotic head choppers.
7
Mr. Stephens there lies the dilemma---finding the right response between "inaction and over reaction." As evidenced by two decades of our foreign policy adventures, we have failed to find that middle road---in fact, beginning with Vietnam, we have always taken the wrong road. I am in the school of don't take roads where you have no road maps---our favored policy---but, still open to a strategy that would ameliorate the suffering in that region. What I am certain of, is Trump, who I doubt can find some of these hotspots on a map, and his band of incompetents, are incapable of finding that middle road---
40
It is remarkable to me that two days after the 17th anniversary of the al-Qaeda attacks on the USA someone would write an oped in The New York Times in essence advocating support for HTS, which is the branch of al-Qaeda in Syria. The get Assad, get Putin and get Iran folks seem to have thrown good judgement and good sense to the winds.
23
Why don’t “ WE “ just bite the bullet and start another unnecessary, never ending, WAR ??? No thanks. THAT particular dance yard is permanently FULL. Enough of these foreign debacles, we have enough problems HERE.
Seriously.
24
Obama never washed his hands of any responsibility ever. Obama saw, as most analysts warn, that the regional power struggles are so numerous and entangled that outside forces cannot stop one without putting another one into a position of murderous power. Thus containment. There needs to be a force for peace able to take power over the government, or external military engagement has no end game. There is no peaceful faction to take power. To choose military engagement is thus to choose who gets to kill whom with the means of government. Obama wouldn't go there.
It's partisan to say that Trump's policy-by-tweet is equivalent to Obama's well-considered containment policy.
78
Obama's "well considered containment policy" consisted of a no chemical weapons redline in Syria that he didn't enforce; an ineffective Iran nuclear deal that strengthened and enriched the mullahs and kicked the can down the road on Iranian nukes; and a general world intervention strategy of leading from behind. Let's not defend Obama here, WJL. He was a feckless leader when it came to determining US foreign policy, and John Kerry was his lieutenant. Trump is different. He's a clueless leader. But that's another topic.
“As for Assad, he will have shown that the community of civilized nations will, in fact, let you get away with murder.”
Civilized nations? Is that a joke? Near as I can tell, humanity left civilization behind about three thousand years ago.
4
Finally, a return to a lucid Bret column - absoluteky dead n accurate on every count.
I seem to remember that the primary objective of America was to stop the spread of wacko al Qaeda terrorists bent on the destruction of the West. Assad, although a murderous monster, has been doing just that, with Russia’s help. We should make up our mind - work to unseat Assad and allow even worse murderers to take control of the country and further destabilize the Middle East or swallow hard and accept that Assad provides some needed stability in the region. We can’t have both.
62
Bret Stephens and others like him are simply wrong. There is nothing that the U.S. can do to stop this final Asad assault on the last rebel area in Syria. As terrible as an Asad victory will be, he has won back most of Syria in bloody fighting that has lasted for seven years. When he consolidates Idlib, most of the fighting will end. Iran and Russia will have prevailed. But the human cost of the Syrian civil war will start to decline, and hopefully at least some of the Syrian refugees might be able to return home. Neither Obama nor Trump have had a Syria policy, so it is way too late to form one now. The next step is to try and contain the damage, by keeping Iran and Russia inside Syria. And weep for the dead, and the dying, because there is nothing else to do in the Syrian tragedy.
45
@David Sorenson -- yes. At this point, the best way to reduce the carnage would be to make it easier, not harder, for the regime to retake full control of the country.
The direction is correct BUT the policy execution is not possible . It is only through Israeli action that Iranian and Iranian backed terrorists that can be achieved , US and others can help but it has to be led by Israel . The Iranian will not be allowed to fight Israel b Syria and Russians will not protest .
1
Please spare us the humanitarian pretense. The US turned Raqqa and Mosul into rubble fighting ISIS and killed thousands of civilians— Russia does the same fighting Al Qaeda and its allies. And nothing is ever said by Mr. Stephens about the Saudi bombing of Yemen. This is entirely about fighting Iran and civilian deaths are merely a factor to be used or not used in the argument, depending on who inflicts them.
A massive bombing campaign would itself kill civilians and risk war with Russia. It would also risk war with Iran, but then, that seems to be the real purpose of the exercise.
14
There should be no action taken by the western nations to save Idlib. In fact the sooner it is leveled and more people die, and more people run to Turkey for help, the sooner Syria can forget their country and start all over. I am waiting for Damascus to be bombed, level, no place for Assad to go. Soon, in just a few years the rebels will stop fighting because there will be nothing to fight for. This is where the wars of the Middle East are all going. Fighting will stop not because of truce or peace, but even terrorists and rebels want a good bath once in a while. So, the more bombings by Russia, the more complaints by Turkey against taking refugees, and the more weapons America gives to rebels, the sooner more people die, and the sooner Assad realizes he no longer has anyone to be King of.
1
It seems more likely that Donald Trump will order an invasion of Venezuela than he will take meaningful action in Syria. It feels like more of his Putin phobia. Listen closely for any outcry from the American people, much less the EU, over the fate of a few million Syrians, and you have your answer as to what will happen next. The only mystery is how Israel will act toward the Iranian presence. They have shown real willingness to strike and Russia has done nothing to protect the Iranians. Israel will do whatever it takes to protect itself from an Iranian threat on its border.
1
Like bankers and right-wing economists, neocon pundits in American can never fail, be discredited or experience shame.
Is there a good reason anyone should still be listening to Bret Stephens on matters of state?
6
"The middle road between overreaction and inaction." Exactly what the Kennedy's were trying to do in Vietnam. I remember. I remember.
Bret, I love your work, but this piece slips into the same meaningless morass of "having to do something" without any meaningful support in the way of steps and costs, and a rational assessment of the expected results from implementing those steps and the additional costs.
A nice, clean, overwhelming military response would of course be a wonderful thing. Since when was there ever a nice, clean, overwhelming military response?
As for Turkey, Erdogan made the bed, now he has to lay in it. Tough.
As far a "diplomatic solutions" go, this is the result of one. The "deconfliction zones". Those were established in 2017 by the Trump administration, with Jim Mattis at the helm of Defense. This is our "diplomatic solution". So let's use it!
How about we take our "deconfliction zone" in the east of the country, make it a safe haven for the refugees from Idib, and formalize the borders as the new Kurdish state? Let's think a little outside the box here. The old solutions from the right (military response) and the left (diplomacy) are useless. The acceptance of the refugees from Idib will provide the necessary diplomatic, political and humanitarian cover. The new country would have resources (the oil fields) and military muscle (us).
And if either Erdogan or Assad have a beef, tough. The Russkis tried to probe our border and got wiped out in a matter of minutes. If either of the aforementioned wants a go at us, have at it. Good luck with that.
Let's do it!!!
Idlib cannot be saved. Idlib is destroyed, its people killed or escaped thanks to a misguided western crusade for democracy improvement. And the photo of a "rebel" caption should say "terrorist". Keeping Assad in power would prevent death of one million Syrians and further millions of refugees. The destruction of Syria for geopolitical reasons should have been thwarted. Unfortunately for millions it is too late.
3
The Syrian crisis.
Why should Syria have to live with one renegade province, supported, funded and armed by the US, refusing to recognize the sovereignty of the Syrian government?
What we need to do is to stay completely out of it and stop pretending that if the government of Syria actually controls the territory of Syria that it is some major threat to the United States.
If a couple of Facebook posts by Russians are enough to send Democrats into a tizzy on the theory that one should not interfere in the governance of others, what the heck justifies what we are doing to Syria?
3
Another war. Just what is needed right now. Presumably, you Mr. Stephens are already signed-up and ready to go. Too old. No problem. Send one of your kids instead. Boy or girl doesn’t matter these days. Too young. That’s alright. There’ll be plenty of opportunities for them to be killed, maimed or traumatized later. Because wars even the ones with '‘limited objectives’' have a habit of not being all over by Christmas.
There are an estimated 20,000 jihadists in Idlib, and they’ve had four years to dig-in. Let the Iranians deal with them, they at least will have the support of half the population. Not that they’ll succeed. But when they claim victory, we’ll all know that their troubles are only beginning.
The best military strategy has always been to let someone else do the fighting. Yes. And the army could be sent to do something actually useful, such as rebuild Porto Rico.
7
"And then there’s the United States, where two administrations have now allowed the Syrian crisis to become depressing testimony to the worthlessness of our word, the fickleness of our friendship and hollowness of our values."
This actually should place the blame on three administrations. The Bush administration's Cheney-inspired invasion of Iraq upset the balance of power between Iran and Iraq. Both the resources and the will of America to fight a war in the region were squandered by Bush-Cheney.
History does record the collapse of empires by self-inflicted wounds--among them elective wars which squander human and financial treasure that result in the accumulation of massive debt and the neglect of domestic economic needs.
1
"The countdown for the siege of Idlib has begun. America’s enemies know the stakes. Do we?"
.
That ship sailed a long, long time ago.
.
The US did not invade Afghanistan to contain Iran. By and large, the US and Iran were, and are, de facto allies in Afghanistan. America's opponents in Afghanistan are Pakistan and Saudi.
.
The US did not invade Iraq to contain Iran. The US invaded Iraq to get rid of the insufferable Saddam Hussein. Iran turned out to be the big winner of the subsequent elections set up by the US.
.
After those two wars, in 2011 - 2012, please name the GOP Senators and Congressmen who were prepared to lead bi-partisan support for President Obama to launch US military intervention in Syria?
.
America relied on its major regional allies, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, to do the job Syria.
.
Why did this not work?
.
First, the Syrian revolution (remember the "Arab Spring"?) was initiated to drive democratic reform.
.
So, if democratic reform was the objective motivating the people of Syria, was it a wise idea to rely on Saudi Arabia, a country that has made a life-mission out of crushing democratic reform in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Chad, Mali, Nigeria, Niger, Afghanistan, Pakistan ...
.
If democratic reform was the objective, was it wise to rely on AK in Turkey, the mid-wife of IS?
.
America's best allies? The Kurds - opposed by the Turks, Iran, Saudi and Russia.
.
Saving Idlib is a fine idea.
The time to do it was 6 years ago.
81
Urging a get-tough policy in the Idlib province of Syria to thwart Bashar al-Assad and the Iranian mullahs who support al-Assad, is fine. Bret Stephens, however, makes the mistake of claiming that Donald Trump’s hesitancy is a continuation of some blunder by Barack Obama.
President Obama wanted a nuclear deal with Iran to delay Iranian development of nuclear weapons, and five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany and the European Union negotiated a brilliant Agreement in Vienna to do just that.
There is nothing in that Agreement precluding military action against al-Assad in Syria or against Iranian troops assisting al-Assad in Syria.
Have at it, Mr. Stephens, but don’t think that military action in Syria includes a legal or moral right to bomb Iranian citizens within the borders of Iran or to bomb ethnic Iranian civilians in parts of Yemen where they have lived for centuries.
Much of what President Obama did or did not do in his final months in office reflected the fact that he did not think Donald Trump would win the election.
Obama avoided anything which would seem to be trying to influence the election against Trump or which would pre-empt Hillary Clinton from pursuing her own foreign policy in office.
Obama did impose tough sanctions on Russia for actions in Ukraine, Crimea and in the United States, and he assumed every Republican – including Donald Trump – would agree.
Little did we all know of the Putin-Trump partnership.
This is none of our business. More importantly, what Mr. Stephens is advocating is the continuation of a hypocritical foreign policy by the U.S. Bashar al-Assad is seen as a dictator, while oppressive monarchs across the Middle East, most notably Saudi Arabia, are seen as rightful leaders (read: strategic allies). Hence, they are supported by the U.S. (Women in Saudi Arabia were just given the right to drive this summer - sort of.)
The Syrian resistance will be no less tyrannical than Bashar al-Assad should they succeed. Not to mention, they'll turn on us. U.S. support for said resistance is more about thwarting Iran's alleged hegemony in the region (read: holy war - my form of Islam is better than yours) than overthrowing Assad. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has been financing an opposite hegemony in the Middle East for decades. Enough. This is a Syrian Civil War. America should do everything we can to avoid using our military. We need to evolve past the notion that we're the most powerful country on this planet. We do that with economics. It's a slow process, but it works and nobody dies. World trade is the path to peace.
6
The key to Middle East stability, maybe even peace, is the old fashioned policy of spheres of interest. A colonial-era treaty that expressed this, the Sykes-Picot Treaty of 1916, was ultimately destabilizing because it was, well, colonial. Today there could be an agreement that is stabilizing in better acknowledging the ethnic, religious, and political fault lines of the region. It's basis would be that Iran and Syria, dominated by Iran, fall within the Russian sphere, while Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Jordan, Israel, and Egypt fall within the sphere of the United States. Iraq and Lebanon require more than can be expressed in this letter, but internal coalitions and stability are possible. According to this understanding, the United States would acknowledge the reality that it has no decisive role to play in Syria, whose fate lies largely in the hands of Iran and Russia. In the modern era, Syria was always under the suzerainty of the Soviet Union. (Recall it's backer in it's three wars with Israel.) U.S. efforts to play a decisive role in Syria always fail because they fail to recognize this historical reality.
Since 1979 and the Iranian Revolution, the U.S. has painted Iran as the source of all evil in the world. Of course, most media hardly ever couch discussions about Iran in terms of the nasty things the U.S. government (a la the CIA) did to the Iranian people starting back in the 50's. There's also the Shah who was our boy. Nor is there ever a discussion of how we supported Sadham Hussien in the killing of huge numbers of Iranians (using our weapons). Naturally, we're the "good guys" in all of this.
And ponder this. If you replace Evangelicals here with Mullahs there in most sentences, you would discover that Iran and the U.S. have more in common than you think.
20
@mrfreeze6--how can you forget about the Hostage Crisis which began in November 1979 when Iranian militants seized the US embassy and held our diplomats as captives for 444 days?? I think the US has good reason for painting Iran as the source of evil in the world.
However the US is still being held hostage by events that happened when Dwight Eisenhower was president.
I happened to have been in college at the time and had many Iranian (and other foreign friends). The hostages were payback for decades of U.S. interference by the U.S. in Iranian politics and government. In the big scheme of things, the Iranians responded with far less "evil" toward the U.S. than the U.S. has responded in many other circumstances (9/11 for example where we attacked the wrong nations and killed a lot of people for no reason). I'm afraid I'm one of those terrible Americans who doesn't believe we are the beacon of truth, justice and purity in the world.
Reading the beginning of the article i expected to see a serious proposal as to how the US should act in Idlib but there is non. there is only one . Being an experience journalist, especially with regards to the Middle East, Mr. Stephens knows that in order to regain its historical status as a real power the USA will have to convince the players in Syria, all of them, that "the US carries a big stick and is ready to use it, no other language is understood in the Middle East. If the USA wants to calm down Assad, the Iranians, the Turks and the Russians the President should do 2 things. First move American troops (that are already in the neighborhood) with some Kurdish battalions toward Idlib warning the Iranians and Russian to stop everything and meet with US representatives to find a solution in Idlib and at the same time the President should declare that he recognizes Kurdistan. If these 2 steps will be carried simultaneously a solution will be found very fast and the USA will regain its status and i am sure no one will shoot at no one. The problem? the political atmosphere in the USA !!!
4
I am glad that you are sure that there will be no shooting, but what if you are wrong? What if there will be shootings, and there will be a wider war? Do you have plan B? Or as usual, you are expecting everybody else to fix your mistakes?
A slightly more complicated way to control Iran is to build a time machine and go back to 1990-91 and decide not to invade Iraq and to leave Saddam Hussein in power. He was a monster, his two sons were monsters, and his henchmen were monsters and yet they were the counter-balance that kept Iran forces at home. It's not like he was replaced with a Middle Eastern George Washington or that we've turned Iraq into the garden spot of the Euphrates. George Bush's war continues to be the gift that keeps on giving.
19
“depressing testimony to the worthlessness of our word, the fickleness of our friendship and hollowness of our values.”
These are the things that needed to be said. Good job in writing and publishing this piece.
2
Th thwart Iran...
Seriously ?
Does Stephens think that Iran's autocrats will even attend the presentation on the Idlib results ?
They couldn't care less. This is a game to them. A few people more or less, a few cities more or less, don't matter.
Were the rebels to have actually overthrown Assad, killed all his henchmen, run all the allied business owners out of the country, and closed the borders - they would still have been unable to hold onto their gains and run the place as a viable nation.
Neighboring states would have moved to eliminate the power vacuum, carve the place up, and poof - no more Syria.
Either way, the Syrian citizens lose.
Thus it is, when autocrats and oligarchs hold a nation.
The threat to US interests is not in Syria. It is, exactly, their nuclear ambitions, and their ongoing facilitation of terrorism and sabotage around the globe.
Congress does not have the wisdom or the backbone to authorize the only solution which is guaranteed to work: the overthrow and eradication of Iran's dictators.
Allowing the people of Iran to choose their leaders without the constraints of a faux-constitution put in place by radical Islamic extremists is a worthy goal.
And editing the constitution, by the people, such that it conforms to the wishes of the people.
Persians aren't Arabs. Their culture of music, literature, arts, and science goes back several millenia. They can figure out how to run their own country, easily. They just need a chance to do so.
4
Brett, I share your frustration. In the corporate world, there is an old saying, "Don't bring your boss a problem unless you can provide a solution." Well, where is your solution? The answer is there is none that is practicable. Two administrations have looked at Syria and have seen a huge problem that can only be addressed by a long term commitment of men, material and money with no guarantee of success. They look at Afghanistan as a model and ask themselves do we want other?
Syria and our ability to address it's problems fit the Serenity Prayer: God, grant me the Serenity, to accept the things I can not change, Courage to change the things I can, and the Wisdom to know the difference.
5
To start , Why would one want to thwart Iran ? And not thwart the US or thwart Israel , the main culprits for the turmoil in the region ? The countries responsible for the whole mess are the ones washing their hands and letting other countries deal with the problem of refugees, and that is the US and the UK with their invasion of Irak. And Israel promoting disunion in the region.
25
@AGC Do you really think Israel is promoting disunion? For over 60 years the only point of agreement between the Arab countries was their desire to destroy Israel. Do you really think that there's unity between the Shia and the Sunni, between a Lebanese shopkeeper and Isis?
1
@Joe Weber
Of course : since the Balfour Declaration when the UK gave as a gift a piece of Palestine to jewish aspirations in exchange for jewish support in WWI-
Trillions of dollars poured down the drain in Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of American soldiers killed or wounded, the middle east in a turmoil and Stephens is still not satisfied nor has he learned from his mistakes.
Does he expect Russia not to respond to these air attacks? Cratering the runways has not worked in WW 2 and has not worked when we tried it in Syria and does he expect Assad to sit exposed in his pace just waiting for us to bomb him?
The only possible hope we had of deposing Assad was to put hundreds of thousands of American troops in Syria. Be honest about this Stephens.
24
@Edward Blau..Great idea, but I doubt Stphens and his ilk are capable of honesty..or sanity for that matter
2
"What would be a serious policy? Trump warned — in a tweet! — that Assad “must not recklessly attack Idlib Province.” Such an attack should be the administration’s red line, regardless of whether the Syrian regime uses chemical weapons. If Assad crosses it, the U.S. can destroy everything that remains of the Syrian Air Force and crater the runways Iran uses to supply its own forces in Syria. If Assad continues to move, his presidential palaces should be next."
Absolutely correct Mr. Stephens. I agree with every word of this op-ed. Unfortunately, Mr. Stephens, few in the US will agree with you.
Even enemies of Mr. Trump will urge him to desist entirely from involvement in Syria and to continue the Obama policy that led to the ensuing bloodbaths in Syria. While, as you point out, Mr. Trump opposed the Obama policy, he is not willing, for whatever reasons, to commit to the correct solution that you suggest.
Iran wins, Russia wins, Hezbollah wins and this winning combination guarantees continued war in the Middle East. It will just move to other regions, but one can expect to find Mr. Assad a willing participant. Perhaps someone else will eventually take him down.
When it comes to Syria, the US's red lines seem to be virtual and porous.
4
@Joshua Schwartz--Happy New Year Joshua!! I hope you're having a happy 5779 despite the usual chorus of Israel bashers who sing Iran's praises while continuing to blame Israel for the crime of continuing to exist.
1
How did Stephens’s horror scenario come to pass? Could it have been the mistaken neocon policies we have been following for decades?
Did the removal of Saddam hinder or abet the fear of Shiites?
When malcontents appeared in March 2011 Syria, did our interference alongside the UK, France, Gulf sheiks, Erdogan regime, and Israel elicit Iranian expansion and Russian military presence?
Intelligence and policy failures has resulted in the very fearful situation Stephens now obsesses about.
Syria became the battleground and its citizens became the victims. A destabilized Syria has produced: Turkish-Kurdish tensions, potential Lebanese sectarian war, European resentment to people fleeing the fighting seeking refugee, increased Iranian influence in Syria, and possible war with Russia.
What Stephens et al refuse to acknowledge is that the “rebels” of Idlib are the remnants of jihadists from previous lost battles with the Syrian army who fled to the province. These al Qaeda, ISIS, and assortment of foreign jihadists are the people that Stephens would save. In essence, US military action will benefit the very people who were responsible for 9/11.
Stephens sectarian worry of Shiites bad and Sunnis good will only make matters worse. Putting aside hysteria, a reunified Syria, a bargain with Russia, and returning to the Iranian agreement will go a lot further to achieving calm with a lot less harm.
77
Very right, doughboy. We are now the de facto ally of Al Qaeda.
4
Brilliant comment, doughboy. Unfortunately we live in a Neocon-Zionist constructed Twilight Zone in which Iranians are the bad guys and Al Qaeda and ISIS the ones needing protection.
Those horrible Iraqi and Libyan regimes were at least secular, with minorities fiercely protected. U.S. bungling led to the mass rape of Yazidi women, destruction of priceless art and infrastructure, millions of dead and homeless, and a very near permanent presence of a so called Caliphate.
Hasn't the U.S. caused enough death and destruction without wishing for more?
9
@doughboy attaboy. Your eloquent comment deserves a Times recommendation, but good luck with that.
I would just add that the neocon policies you referred to are those which benefit the geopolitical aims of Israel and Saudi. Instability in Syria serves their interests in weakening Iran.
As to how the US itself is expected to benefit, that’s much more difficult to answer.
2
There are no good options left with Syria. There are only the catastrophic and the disastrous.
At this point there is no military intervention possible that will "save" Idlib, short of sending in American troops to confront Syrian troops, supported by Iranian and Russian troops --- a true recipe for a superpower confrontation, if not for World War III.
So, what is left is dealing with another wave of refugees, which if they went to Europe could turn what is left of democracy there into fascism version 2.0. The only "solution" therefore is to create a place for these refugees in the region, which would require a huge amount of money both for their needs and to effectively "bribe" the host counties into accepting them.
12
How about the Jordan Valley?
@John Graubard: ... while the int'l. community
has shown how very stingy it is by not providing
enough $ to feed those millions of refugees and
displaced people in camps in jordan, lebanon, kenia etc. on the african continent NOW.
can the mess be fixed? not in the short term, alas!
for longterm solutions: share energy resources fairly.
leave greed and hipocrisy out of all deals. impossible?
not in my world. honestly.
[in the meantime,
ask saudi arabia & maybe israel to stop instigating.]
1
@John Graubard - Considering the entire ME region has been suffering a decades long drought, there is nowhere geographically that could support such a space.
The drought has already displaced people and animal from their ancestral homes.
Unless the major powers were to start building desalinization plants like the Carlsbad plant in San Diego and produce enough water to support these populations, there is zero chance of a peaceful resettlement.
What would it cost? The Carlsbad plant cost $1 billion and supplies enough water to sustain 400,000 people. A $100 billion humanitarian effort would sustain 40,000,000 people. Plus it would be an infrastructure program so large as to provide meaningful employment to many of those displaced.
We can continue using war to solve our problems, or we could think outside the box and and try a different path. A different path that ultimately might be much less expensive.
Idlib can save ifself, it is just a question of negotiate the terms of surrender.
A shiite crescent from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea opens up for establishing pipelines from the huge oil and gasfields in the Persian Gulf to Europe.
Such pipelines will benefit all Gulf states and become a huge competitor to Russia.
One thing is sure, common interest in earning money, has always been a good motivation to peace.
14
It's hard to accept that sometimes there are no good options. Blaming Obama for bad decisions in Syria ignores the fact that the power of the US to dictate any kind of good outcome was limited.
Donald Trump doesn't ever admit a mistake and he likes to feel "strong." That doesn't bode well for a good outcome in Syria.
More refugees. A future for Syria where Assad has power to dominate those who oppose him and an alliance with Iran that offends the Sunni states. What could go wrong?
11
"What the objective is not is to dictate Syria’s future or solve its problems, much less get into the weeds of sorting out Idlib’s bad rebels from the more moderate ones."
It seems like the objectives are to embroil the U.S. in another conflict without only the most nebulous of goals and to further lengthen the Syrian civil war for the sake of American interests and/or "face."
29
America has been fighting proxy wars since the days of the illegal wars in Central America.
Stephens argues that we continue that policy, but It's long past time that we stopped. The carnage of our proxy wars has achieved little, has left devastation that has lasted for years and put entire regions in dire economic straits for decades.
The sounder policy would be to broker a cease-fire and some solution that allows for the reconstitution of Syria as a functioning state. This will mean a state ruled by Assad the dictator.
But the alternative is a continuing war that is already being fought by elements of Al Qaeda and ISIS on the so-called "rebel' side and Iran in support of the Syrian government.
Caught in between are millions of Syrian civilians that would rather live in their homes, even under an authoritarian regime than being cast into a diaspora as refugees.
Stephens and his fellow neocons ignore this, just as they did in Iraq, which has become a failed state that gave rise to ISIS. It's as if we haven't learned anything from that debacle.
But it seems that as long as the Saudi's are paying the bills and the Islamists, who hate the Aliwaite Assad are doing the fighting and dying that we find all this death an acceptable direction of our foreign policy.
It actually reflects the lack of clear foreign policy as well as the utter disregard for the lives of innocent Syrians.
It's time for saner heads to prevail if they can still be found in this administration.
61
Red lines and rhetoric will not work. The US needs to take proactive decisive action with overwhelming force in order to buy time.
1
@Mark Buy time for what and for how long? Send in American troops. They stop Assad and the Russians. So how long do you keep them there? Year? Two years? Assad is not going away so when we pull the troops he will still be there waiting. In the mean time who is going to administer the province and provide services? The US? FYI, every Islamic terrorist in the region will be taking pot shots at our troops while they are there.
11
Don't expect humanitarian arguments to sway Erdogan. Massive casualties and refugees leave him cold. Only the prospect of Assad back on top and Iran ruling the Shiite Crescent sufficiently repel him to force Turkey back into alliance with America, Israel, and even some Kurds. Together they could stop Assad, Hezbollah, the mullahs, and Putin in their tracks. It would be a tough sell and a tougher fight, but the US could do it. John Bolton and Bibi could do it. It's now or never.
1
The winner of an Idlib humanitarian disaster is Putin on many levels - as refugees begin to make way towards Europe and the Turkish floodgates give way the right wing parties that support a rapprochement with Russia will continue to destabilize the established order within European nation-states and its Union. Putin is not alone in seeking EU destabilization, Donald Trump too believes in the divide and rule strategy while Steve Bannon lays the groundwork building an ideological framework.
36
Not to mention increasing upward pressure on oil prices...Russia’s main source of income.
But who will be a winner if Assad would be bombed? The civil war would start anew, and millions Syrians will go to EU, as it was before Russians got involved and stabilized Assad regime. Wouldn't this wave destabilize EU and increase influence of far-rights that will benefit Russians? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. American policy in these countries never worked as it was designed and consequences were devastated for the region and for the World, but I guess for some people, it is hard to learn even from their own expensive mistakes.
3
"So why is it (the U.S.) so reluctant to lift a finger against Tehran’s most audacious gambit in Syria?"
Well, anyone with a sense of recent history wouldn't ask such a question. Everything the U.S. has attempted to encircle and weaken Iran has had exactly the opposite effect, from the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq to the bombings of Libya and Syria. And all of this at a cost of two million innocent lives, 10 million refugees and an additional 100 million displaced citizens caught in the crossfires of no less than 5 U.S. Wars of Choice.
Attention Mr. Salman,
Attention Mr. Netanyahu,
"Divide And Rule" isn't working, either abroad or even in your own states.
But that's all right, isn't it, Mr. Stephens? let's have more of the same. Hilarious if it weren't so tragic.
116
@Hamid Varzi All true. But not the primary explanation. Such strategic considerations - not to mention humanitarian considerations - are not in DJT's DNA. The answer is that Putin is calling the shots: both Iran and DJT obey his commands.
1