Author: Michael Sharnoff

What can be done to stop the looming Idlib assault, and what — realistically — is the best outcome the Trump administration can hope for?

“There’s always been overlapping or unclear objectives. There’s never been an unambiguous strategy. Unlike the Russians, as we know, who have always had one clear strategy: the preservation of the Assad regime. And they’ve backed that up with military force.”

Read the full interview with the Washington Times.

The United States has little leverage in Syria and very few policy options. Russia is the strongest external actor in Syria and Russian influence will likely prevail. Since 2015, Putin has deployed military force in support of the Syrian government. The United States and Russia have supported opposite sides in the Syrian war, and there is little incentive for Putin who is winning to now offer concessions to Trump.

The most that the United States can hope for or expect is that Russia agrees to maintain a de-escalation zone in southern Syria. This pact was established in 2017 between Russia, the United States, and Jordan to create de-escalation zones on the Syrian-Israeli border and on the Syrian-Jordanian border. There is a shared goal of achieving stability and saving lives by preventing Iranian-backed militias from conducting operations in the area.

However, Syria has a history of doing what it pleases, not what the United States — or Russia — demands. Assad is determined to reconquer all of Syria, and implementing and enforcing this buffer zone would require Russia to turn against Iran. It is unlikely that Moscow would be willing to use military force to expel the Iranians and their allies from southern Syria, as this could potentially ignite another conflict and foment greater instability.

Read the full interview with the Lebanese daily An-Nahar [Arabic] Newspaper.

Despite their alliance, Russia has never had much influence over Syria’s policies.

Published in the Washington Post.

All eyes are on Russia as President Trump prepares to meet with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki next week. But the real geopolitical focus of the meeting might well be a few thousand miles away in Syria. Last week, national security adviser John Bolton said that the meeting could offer a “larger negotiation on helping to get Iranian forces out of Syria” and that an agreement could be “a significant step forward” for U.S. interests in the Middle East.

But Bolton is engaging in wishful thinking, if not outright delusion. That’s not just because the United States and Russia, despite sharing the goal of stability in Syria, fundamentally diverge on how to achieve it. The administration is also vastly overestimating how much sway Russia actually has in Syria. While Syria has been Moscow’s closest Arab ally — and the largest recipient of its economic and military aid — since 1972, Russia’s influence on Syrian policy has been limited. Even as Russia’s military presence in Syria since 2015 has granted it greater leverage over the country’s future, historical precedents suggest that the relationship will continue to be one of constant disappointment and frustration.

Continue reading the full article in the Washington Post.