How Putin's Boldness on Syria Trumps U.S.

Vladimir Putin’s motives in expanding the Russian military footprint in Syria may, for now, be opaque. But this much is clear: Russia’s actions and boldness contrast sharply with the muddle that U.S. policy on the Middle East has become.

Whatever you think of the Russian president’s strategy, Mr. Putin is focused and knows his mind when it comes to what he regards as Russia’s interests-–in this case, supporting embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The Syrian regime is weakening and isn’t much as an ally. But when it comes to Syria, Mr. Putin has got Iran in his corner, too. That’s more than Washington can say. Then there are these points: 

The U.S. says it has three core objectives in the Syrian civil war: Check the rise of Islamic State; create a coherent opposition to ISIS and, eventually, to the Assad regime; and force the Syrian leader to accept some kind of political transition. None of these is being achieved right now, and the goals are at odds with each other. Furthermore, Washington has neither the motivation nor the capacity to accomplish these goals. Most of the Syrian opposition is focused not on checking ISIS but on getting rid of Mr. Assad. The U.S., however, is fearful of alienating Iran and empowering ISIS so won’t take on Mr. Assad, let alone take him out. And by not directly acting against the Syrian regime, Washington empowers Islamic State, whose extremists exploit anti-Assad grievances among Sunnis.

Mr. Putin doesn’t have a strong hand in Syria. And as with Crimea, it will cost him financially to project his power there. But in a way his cards are easier to play and he’s prepared to put some muscle behind them. Like the U.S., he sees Islamic State as a serious threat, partly because jihadis in Chechnya are in Russia’s back yard. Russian intelligence reportedly estimates that there may be 2,000 Russian-speaking jihadis in Syria. But in contrast to the U.S. position, opposing ISIS neatly coincides with Mr. Putin’s other key goal: bucking up Mr. Assad and ensuring that Russia has a major say in who or what replaces him, should it come to that. You might wonder what sort of influence Moscow would have in a post-Assad Syria after supporting Mr. Assad’s murderous policies for so long. The answer is probably not a lot. But the Russian president is focused more on preserving Mr. Assad’s rump regime and ensuring that Russia, not the U.S., is the dominant non-regional power in Syria. Also, as of 2012 there were at least 30,000 Russian nationals in Syria to protect, as well as the Russian naval base at Tartus.

Significantly, Mr. Putin has assets to move around that allow him to directly influence the situation in Syria. Sure, the U.S. supports Syrian Kurds; Washington can try to train Syrian opposition forces in Jordan and can carry out airstrikes. But those aren’t boots on the ground. When it comes to having Syrian forces that it can support and train with its own advisers and troops, Russia has this and more. Neither Iran nor Hezbollah is invincible. But they are willing to shed blood and treasure to keep Mr. Assad afloat. And though Russia and Iran aren’t natural allies, their interests coincide for now. Iran is letting Russia fly in its airspace to deliver military equipment to the Assad regime. This summer brought reports that Quds Force commander Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani was in Moscow for talks with Mr. Putin.

However weak the Russian hand may prove to be in Syria, when Mr. Putin acts to assert Russian power he appears strong. And Russia is making a major move to supply and support Mr. Assad while maintaining that the real enemy is ISIS. Perhaps Mr. Putin is too clever by half. But at a time when U.S. policy in Syria looks confused and weak, Mr. Putin looks bold by contrast. What’s the significance? It is remarkable that while the U.S. just cut a major agreement with Iran on the nuclear issue, it is Mr. Putin, not Washington, getting Iran’s help in Syria. Things like this reinforce the idea that the U.S. is playing checkers in the Middle East while everyone else plays three-dimensional chess. The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author.

This article originally appeared in The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire.