WarSclerotic

It was evident from Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s joint press conference that the guest from Israel was warmly received, but that no agreement was reached to halt the sale of the Russian-made S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Putin, who opposes Western initiatives to create a no-fly zone over war-torn Syria, hinted that Israel would do well to cease its policy of air attacks against the convoys of sophisticated weapons intended for Hezbollah.

Consequently, Netanyahu had no choice but to publicly reiterate to his host that the Israel Defense Forces would maintain its current policy. It will attack convoys of advanced weaponry passing from Syria to Lebanon. Everything was said with the accepted modicum of diplomatic correctness.

Netanyahu’s hurried visit to the Black Sea coast was planned while he was in China. It points to Israel’s sense of urgency in preventing the transfer of the 144 operational S-300 missiles to Assad. They are dangerous, and it is possible that even more dangerous missiles will be shipped in the future.

As Israelis watch, along with the rest of the world, a Syrian rebel fighter biting into the heart of a dismembered Syrian soldier, no one can rationally conclude which side is better and who is the preferred victor. This also adds a sense of credibility to the Israeli claim that it doesn’t favor either side and is not interfering in Syria.

It is reasonable to assume that the Kremlin has the same lingering doubts. The Syrian regime is a long-standing client of Russia, since the days of Soviet Union. Putin does not want to squander his grip on such a close ally, which has access to the “warm waters” of the Mediterranean Sea. But who is Putin actually supporting? Is he betting that Assad, who is proving his survival skills, will emerge victorious?

Russia often conducts itself as if the Cold War still exists; as if it is still the Soviet Union which the world cannot do without. It is embarrassed by America’s continued support of the Islamic regime in Egypt, which deposed loyal U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak, and it is concerned that this could repeat itself in Syria if Assad falls.

Israel also has reason to wonder who it wants to win. On the one hand, Assad is the leading conduit of Iranian interests in the Middle East and a clear ally of Hezbollah. However, since 1974 his family has preserved the calm along the shared border with Israel. For Israel, having Assad is akin to suffering from psoriasis, but there is reason for concern that the rebels are a worse disease, at least judging by all international and humane parameters.

It’s reasonable to assume that Netanyahu knew prior to his departure that the Russians would not agree to delay the missile sale to Syria. The niceties voiced by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov did not include any hint that this would be the case. The goal of the visit is to create pressure on Russia to moderate its position. When other interests sprout up along the Russian-Israeli axis — for example Moscow’s special interest in what Jerusalem will do with its newfound natural gas reservoirs — there is something to talk about.

The longer the sophisticated missiles can be delayed from reaching Syrian hands, the better. Often, diplomacy can achieve nothing more than a delay.