1. There is a theory taking hold that in his summit with Putin in Helsinki, Trump is setting up a grand bargain: concessions to Russia in Europe for Russian help expelling Iran in Syria. I address the illusion of such a deal in this article in @haaretzcom
haaretz.com/us-news/.premi…
haaretz.com/us-news/.premi…
2. While a US-Russian summit is a natural diplomatic step for any President to take, what is completely unnatural is the degree to which both sides seem to want to use such a summit to serve Russian interests.
3. Trump & his team have offered scant indication of what he wants to achieve from this summit, what interests of the US he seeks to advance. He wants a “good relationship” with Putin, we are told. Meanwhile, it's perfectly clear what interests of Russia Putin aims to advance.
4. First he wants to ease pressure and sanctions on Russia imposed in response to its aggression against Ukraine. Trump's posture? Advocate including Russia in the G-7, and open the door to recognizing Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea.
5. Second, Putin seeks to weaken the Western alliance and take steps toward breaking up a united Europe, both of which he perceives as a threat and challenge to Russia. These are longstanding Russian goals.
6. Trump? With the NATO summit ahead of Helsinki, he lobs assaults on our closest allies, downplays NATO's value, & even floated the outlandish notion that the US should withdraw from NATO. He encourages other nations to quit the EU & launched a needless trade war on its members.
7. Third, Putin hopes the world will overlook that Russia interfered in U.S. elections in 2016. Trump tweets: "Russia continues to say they had nothing to do with Meddling in our Election!" He believes Putin more than the US IC & does little to prevent more interference in 2018.
8. Finally, Putin wants the world to accept that the genocidal Assad regime has returned to stability and is restoring its rule over most Syrian territory. Trump has made clear, despite the objections of his advisers, that he wants US forces to leave Syria, the sooner the better.
9. Already, the United States has sent messages to the moderate opposition groups in southern Syria that they should no longer count on American assistance, and that they resist Assad’s forces at their own risk. Predictably, Russian airstrikes are wiping them out.
10. In theory, here's a US (& possibly Israeli) interest that could be served by this summit. If Russia pushes Iran out of Syria, or at least substantially limits its military presence, it could dramatically reduce the risk to Israel from Iranian missiles, drones, & Shia militia.
11. Russia could also guarantee Israeli freedom to strike Iranian targets in Syria, provided no Russian troops are harmed &Assad's regime is not put at risk. For 3 years, Israel (with US support) has successfully targeted Iranian weapons &forces in Syria without Russian blowback.
12. With such understandings, Trump would explain his decision to accommodate Russia in Europe &withdraw US troops from Syria as a win: he ends a US military engagement in the Middle East & Iran’s regional ambitions are rolled back, protecting Israel from a clear &present danger.
13: It sounds too good to be true. It is.
14: Two problems: First, the cost. Such a deal, even if it held, would cause unimaginable harm to US interests in Europe. Some Israelis imagine the US could, in effect, "trade Ukraine for Syria”: accept Russia’s landgrab in Ukraine as the price for Russia expelling Iran from Syr.
15. I can understand why Israelis, focused on regional dynamics and the threats they face, would embrace such a calculus. But I cannot imagine any US strategist willingly giving Russia a free hand in Eastern and Central Europe, even for the noble cause of constraining Iran.
16. Unless that “strategist” seeks to dismantle the Western alliance. It won’t stop at Ukraine. Dark days could lie ahead for the Baltic states & others Putin seeks to dominate. Even Israelis should have pause if the price of removing Iran from Syria is the dismantlement of NATO.
17. Second, the reliability. The “deal” imagined here leaves Russia as the sole actor determining what is allowed to take place in Syria. If it serves Putin’s interests for now to constrain Iran, he will do so.
18. And if he recalculates his interests — if he sees he could gain further regional advantage by being more permissive to Iranian ambitions — nothing would stop him.
19. Israel will still be able to act in its own self-defense. But the strategic gains of an Iranian rollback are dependent on a single factor: Putin’s word. Who wants to base any strategy on putting trust in that?
20. Securing Russia’s commitment to expel Iran from Syria is a worthy goal. Sacrificing decades-old US interests in Europe is not the way to get it.
21. Israelis can be forgiven for hoping Helsinki can help them with Iran. But the course Trump is on will produce only one winner: Russia. It calls to mind the words of one of Bibi's heroes, Churchill: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” END
