Even at the height of Russian interventionism in support of Arab states and their wars against Israel in the early 1970s, Russian warplanes were never seen flying above the Golan Heights. Last week, however, that line was crossed as Russian jets bombed rebel targets in Syria, only a few kilometers from the Israeli border. Russia is deepening its involvement in Syria, determined -- no matter the price -- to meet its objectives, chief among them keeping the regime of President Bashar Assad in power. To that end the Russians are using force, and then some more force, and by doing so are signaling their willingness to go the distance for Assad, even at the cost of potential friction in the south of the country along the borders with Israel and Jordan. The Russians, meanwhile, also realize their gambit can end terribly, as was the case when they invaded Afghanistan three decades ago. The problem is that a Russian defeat in Syria does not necessarily spell an American victory. Indeed, the radical Islamist groups operating in Syria will be the primary benefactors of a Russian failure, just like the Taliban benefited from Russia's downfall in Afghanistan. Amid this backdrop an historical summit was convened last weekend in Vienna, including the United States and Russia along with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran. All these countries share a common goal -- to preserve the Syrian state as the main arena of resistance against the Islamic State group and any other player destabilizing and threatening the region (for the Turks, for example, the Kurds are such a player.) The problem is that Russia and Iran want the Syrian state to remain under their control, and the way to ensure this is to keep Assad in power. Washington however cannot grant legitimacy to the Assad regime, mainly due to public opinion in the West; although it's entirely plausible that the Americans wouldnt mind if Assad pummeled ISIS for them, as long as they weren't blamed for leaving him in power. For Saudi Arabia and Turkey, Assad -- and more to the point his Iranian patron -- represent a red line, as an Iranian victory would pose a threat to their own security. Which brings us to the dilemma: Everyone wants the war to end; everyone wants to preserve and even strengthen the Syrian state; but the question of this state's character, specifically who will control it -- Assad and his Russian and Iranian masters or opposition forces supported by the Saudis and Turks. This quandary remains unresolved, and during the talks in Vienna the sides failed to square the circle. With that, the talks in Vienna have revealed something not necessarily related to the future of Assad and Syria. Firstly, the situation on the ground will dictate the solution to the international community. Success for Assad, with Russian and Iranian support, will force the Americans to show flexibility and perhaps ultimately accept the survival of his regime in Syria. Conversely, if Russia becomes mired in the Syrian mud, Moscow could concede Assad, as the Russian interest certainly supersedes the Syrian interest. Secondly, the Americans and Russians can talk until the cows come home. But neither side truly has influence over the warring parties in Syria. The leading rebel groups, chief among them ISIS, do not heed Washington and certainly do not heed Moscow, therefore any agreement to end the war does not mean it will actually end on the ground. Finally, Iran is reaping the fruits of the nuclear deal, accepted as an equal partner around the adult's table, no longer seen as part of the problem but part of the solution. Israel only has minimal influence over the deal the superpowers are concocting around Assad. But a deal that positions Assad's Syria as a country under the thumb of Iran and Hezbollah, and with Washington's blessing, would require Israel to orientate itself accordingly. Beyond all that, up until recently Syria was a stable and powerful country. It is now part of the menu being served to diplomats at the negotiating table, without the Syrian people having a say over their own fate. And while internal strength and unity are required in war, we see now these qualities are also crucial during negotiations sponsored by or even with the international community.
