Our Next Headache
While John McCain gave the smarter, more carefully crafted response on the question of Russia-as-evil-empire (a firm "maybe") yesterday, it is also true that Moscow keeps playing a very dangerous game both in Asia and in the Middle East. "Engaged in an evil behavior" is the way Obama referred to these Russian actions. Not a bad characterization--if it had come from a pundit, rather than the leading presidential candidate.
The Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, was in Russia the other day, hoping to get some assurances concerning Russian arms sales to Syria and Iran. He got nothing:
Wrapping up a two-day visit here, Mr. Olmert said only that he had succeeded in getting President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia to understand his fears that Russian-made missiles and other technology could fall into the hands of anti-Israeli guerrillas in the Middle East.
"My feeling is the Russian government understands well the Israeli position and is aware the possible influence such supplying could have on stability in the region," Mr. Olmert told reporters traveling with him.
Apparently, the Russians feel that bolstering Tehran's and Damascus's power to confront international pressures (Iran on its nuclear program, Syria on Lebanon and Hezbollah) is in their interest--more so than having stability in the Middle East. This policy is not aimed against Israel, it is their way of rattling a region in which stability, in their view, means the continuation of American hegemony.
Olmert's visit to Moscow was not the first time in recent years when an Israeli Prime Minister was rebuffed by Russian leaders. Ariel Sharon--proudly describing himself as someone who really understand the Russians (he spoke the language) and who had good relations with their leaders--wasn't able to dissuade Putin from selling sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles to Damascus. Putin, promising Sharon that the missiles will not reach the hands of terrorists in Lebanon, sarcastically remarked later that the missiles "will of course make it difficult to fly over the residence of the Syrian president." Namely, they will serve exactly the purpose for which President Assad of Syria wanted the new equipment: curbing Israel's capability of threatening his regime.
Call it "evil" or "not evil" or "maybe" evil--Russia, slowly but surely, is becoming the number one headache for the next president. Call it a "cold war" or not, many of the same patterns will repeat themselves, and many of the same dilemmas.
Russia wants the U.S. to stop meddling in countries that are seen by Moscow as its legitimate sphere of influence - and the U.S. will face difficult choices. If a deal to be made is on the table, it might be a deal in the mode of give-us-Georgia-and-we-will-give-you-Syria-or-Iran. Morally, this is an unacceptable deal. But rejecting such a deal will carry a heavy price tag that the US will have to consider. A nuclear Iran and an emboldened Syria are only two items on such price-list out of many.
And, truth be told, no quick fixes are available here. "If we can reduce our energy consumption", Obama suggested, "that reduces the amount of petro dollars that they have to make mischief around the world." This might be a good debate line, but is hardly a sustainable short-term policy. There are too many "ifs" and it will take too much time to accomplish. More to the point, McCain suggested, "we have to make the Russians understand that there are penalties for these this kind of behavior." Obama, essentially, concurred: "for the most part I agree with Sen. McCain on many of the steps that have to be taken."
One might argue that such bipartisan agreement is yet another sign of a cold-war-like atmosphere.
