WarSclerotic

Russia has never completely abandoned our region, but for 40 years, thanks to Anwar Sadat, Henry Kissinger and the Israeli victory in the Yom Kippur War, Moscow lost most of its previous centers of influence in the Middle East, aside from Syria. Now Russia is back, in a big way.

It is still early to cap the developments of recent weeks surrounding Syria’s chemical weapons program, but one thing is already clear: Without minimizing the importance of the agreement to rid the Syrian regime of its chemical weapons arsenal or the American contribution to the deal, one gets the impression that the Kremlin was at the wheel. Perceptions, primarily in the Middle East, are sometimes more important than facts, and America in our region today looks like it is following; compared to Russia, which was able to dictate — and it does not matter that objectively the U.S. is much more powerful than Russia (and if Washington doesn’t wake up soon and realize who it prefers over whom in Egypt, it is liable to lose ground there as well).

President Barack Obama said in his speech that America no longer wants to be the “world’s policeman.” Vacuums, however, are destined to be filled, and Russia, perhaps with China, will fill them.

Israel is content with the fact that an agreement on Syria was reached, as long as the regime in Damascus meets its conditions and stipulations. The Netanyahu government’s consistent position has been that Israel has no role in the Syrian civil war, but any possible scenario does include neutralizing Assad’s chemical weapons and ensuring that they are not transferred to Hezbollah. Even Assad’s temporarily enhanced status does not need to bother us too much. On the other hand, Israel cannot ignore the potential consequences that Russia’s increased diplomatic standing will have pertaining to crucial diplomatic matters on Israel’s agenda: Iran and the Palestinian problem.

As for Iran, there is a debate in America about whether the Syrian outcome will make Tehran feel more exposed to international pressures, enough so that it will stop its race toward a nuclear weapon; or whether it will see Western weakness, including American “flexibility” about its “red lines” and Russia’s active diplomatic engagement — a type of “building permit” for the continuation of its nuclear program. It can be assumed that this issue was the focus of Netanyahu’s meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry in Jerusalem earlier this week.

In regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Vladimir Putin’s Russia has not, yet, brought up its own diplomatic initiatives and at this stage it is settling for repeating the European Union’s mantras and slogans. In the Soviet past, the situation was different, not only because Stalin and most of his successors saw Zionism as an active and ideological enemy, but also because the Kremlin saw, during the cold war, Israel and its Arab client states marionettes to be controlled by both sides of the globe.

The result of this was that Russia and its satellite states consistently supported the Arab side, supplied weapons to the Egyptian and Syrian armies, trained Palestinian terrorists and cultivated potential terrorists at Lumumba University in Moscow (Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas also studied there). America, in contrast, generally supported Israel and was critical in deciding the outcome of the Yom Kippur War when Kissinger, backed by Nixon, threatened the Russians against intervening on behalf of the beaten Syrians and Egyptians.

Today, the situation is different. There are differences of opinion on several issues, in particular over Moscow’s turning a blind eye, at least on the surface, to the dangers posed by Iran’s nuclear program, but there are also quite a few agreements, either declared or veiled. Israel is certainly not indifferent, for example, to one of the major trends in Russian diplomacy, which is to stymie the expansion of Islam in the world, particularly in its close vicinity. In other areas as well, relations between Moscow and Jerusalem are doing exceedingly well and serve both parties.

However, Russia also understands that even with all the positive changes in relations, Israel will stay, also into the future, unequivocally tied to America and the American people (and to the Jewish community there). With that, Israel is aware of the possibilities offered by Russia’s enhanced status in the Middle East, especially if Russia wants to exploit the relative advantage it has gained from the Syrian situation, which could give it increased prominence on the Palestinian issue. Israeli diplomacy can be expected to be very active on this front in the years to come.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s abysmal failure to provide leadership during the Syrian crisis represents a turning point in the Middle East and has paved the way for President Vladimir Putin’s Russia to emerge as the dominant regional force, a position it had surrendered after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

To avert abject humiliation, Obama has absurdly spun the situation into a victory achieved by the American threat of military force. In reality, it was Putin who played the role of international statesman, masterminding a watershed moment for the Middle East, in which Russia effectively supplanted the U.S. as world leader.

Were Syrian President Bashar Assad to actually dismantle his chemical stockpiles, Putin would have made an important contribution to regional peace and stability. Alas, the likelihood of this happening is exceedingly remote.

Given the barbaric civil war raging throughout Syria, and the history of Syrian lies and deceit, it is virtually impossible to establish any meaningful form of surveillance or control.

Nonetheless, Putin has established a significant role for himself in the Mideast region.

In the process, he has potentially enabled Assad to emerge a victor, despite being embattled and on the brink of collapse until now. The stated deadline is only mid-2014. Already, there are reports that Assad has dispersed and concealed his chemical weapons. With the passage of days, weeks and months, interest in controlling his stockpiles will wane and the possibility of taking action will be effectively forestalled. There will be no consequences to Assad’s actions, since Russia endorsed, and the U.S. capitulated, to his demand that an agreement eschew any mention of reverting to military action should he renege on the deal.

In orchestrating his maneuvers in Syria, Putin has demonstrated not only his support for Syria and Iran, but his ability to stand up and deliver on behalf of his allies. Putin achieved regional hegemony through Russia’s alliance with a broad Shiite arc that includes Iran, Syria, and Lebanon and is likely to include Iraq as well. Egypt is currently out of the equation, but in the past it was the most stalwart of America’s regional allies. Today, it distrusts the Obama administration for its abandonment of Mubarak and its support of the Muslim Brotherhood regime, making it similarly susceptible to Russian influence.

Putin’s objective is to recreate a bipolar global dynamic in which Russia is the dominant power, demonstrating a determination to confront and undermine America on virtually all issues. While he is condemned in the Western world for his authoritarian rule, brutal suppression of dissidents and failure to root out rampant corruption, despite his country’s economic and military limitations, he has harnessed Russia’s energy resources to make impressive progress.

Putin has now successfully promoted himself as an international statesman and will undoubtedly continue to exploit nationalism and anti-Americanism in order to raise his standing within his domestic constituency. His rhetoric reflects this new approach. He did not attempt to morally defend Assad’s actions. Indeed, former U.S. President Ronald Reagan would turn in his grave if he knew of the sanctimonious and cynical paraphrasing of his sentiments by Putin in a recent New York Times article: “We are all different, but when we ask the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal…We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.”

These developments inevitably revive memories of the Soviet Union’s nefarious role in the Middle East during the Cold War and its collusion with Arab states attempting to destroy the Jewish state. It is also reminiscent of the global anti-Semitic campaigns that culminated in the infamous U.N. resolution that equated Zionism with racism.

But it would be incorrect and misleading to place Putin in the same category as the leaders of the evil empire. Unlike the pathological Soviet anti-Semites, Putin has not displayed a hatred of the Jewish people. On the contrary, Israel was the first country he visited after his election and, while here, repeatedly remarked on how pleased he was to visit a state that included more than a million Russian-speaking citizens. He even warned, however disingenuously, that the Syrian rebels were preparing for a poison gas attack against Israel.

But this should not mislead us into regarding Putin as a philo-Semite. Rather, that he will collaborate with Israel if it best serves Russia’s objectives. However, he has continuously employed the Russian veto at the U.N. Security Council in relation to Iran and Syria, and has supported the Iranians, despite their nuclear ambitions which pose an existential threat to Israel.

Indeed, there are now reports that the Russians will provide Tehran with highly advanced defense systems, including five batteries of state-of-the-art S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems, which will certainly make any future military intervention far more hazardous. The Russian media has also reported that in the course of his forthcoming meeting with Iranian President Hassan Ruohani, Putin is likely to offer a new nuclear reactor.

The most serious fallout from the Syrian debacle is the Iranian perception of Obama. His threat to intervene militarily if the Iranians sought to achieve their nuclear objectives was always in doubt, but now it has simply become a joke. Not surprisingly, Tehran has praised the U.S. for employing “rationality.” This will obligate Israel to make some very difficult decisions in the near future.

Israel must now persuade Russia, with whom it has developed good relations in recent years, to draw the line at providing weapons to its allies, which would undermine Israel’s security and power of deterrence. This will test the influence of Soviet Israelis like Avigdor Lieberman, who claims to enjoy a unique relationship with the current Russian leadership. However in light of recent events, we must be aware that Putin’s total focus on furthering Russian influence in the region may lead to his abandonment of Israel in the process.

Israel must not allow itself to be drawn into the regional turmoil. We must deny Assad’s demand that Israel ratify the chemical weapons agreement before Syria does. We must reject Putin’s hint that Assad’s chemical weapons were a poor man’s deterrence against Israel’s nuclear power. We must also be prepared for the possibility that the Obama administration may intensify pressure on us to “make greater sacrifices” to reach a settlement with the Palestinians in order to divert attention from its dreadful failure in Syria.

The unfolding of the Syrian story serves to underline the message: while Israel must retain the support of the American people and Congress in order to combat global political pressures and to withstand Russia’s increasingly active role in the region, we must depend on ourselves and forgo illusions of relying on U.S. military support. As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, quoting Ethics of the Fathers following the Kol Nidre service on Yom Kippur at my Synagogue, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?”