Syria just became even messier

US must ensure Russia fights common Islamic State enemy.

The witch’s brew in Syria has taken another disturbing turn thanks to the vacillation of Barack Obama. Almost inconceivably, the next stage of this complex military, political and humanitarian disaster has been ushered in not by the US but by Russia. While the President of the world’s sole remaining superpower has stood transfixed by indecision, Vladimir Putin has marched in, launched airstrikes and seized the initiative in a civil war that has become a conflagration of sectarian, ethnic, nationalist and now strategic import. Mr Putin is supporting his ally in Damascus, the odious Bashar al-Assad, and seeking to consolidate Russia’s arc of influence through the Middle East, from central Asia through Iran to the Mediterranean coast via Syria. As a nuclear-armed, former superpower, Russia continues to flex its muscle under Mr Putin’s nationalistic leadership. In Syria his aims are clear and his action is decisive.

By comparison, Mr Obama and the Western world (including Australia) seem confused about their aims. This, no doubt, is partly due to the profound consequences at stake; not just for Syria but for the Sunni-Shi’ite divide, the influence of Iran and Russia versus the Arab states and the US, and the stability and security of regional nations including Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon and Israel. But since his precipitous withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 without negotiating a residual security force, Mr Obama’s Middle East policy seems to have been driven by a desire to wipe his hands of the region. Yet with the rise of Islamic State, the Russian complication in Syria and even the overrun by the Taliban of the northern Afghanistan city of Kunduz, the more the US turns its back the worse the denouement.

The starting point for US action and international co-operation must be the elimination of Islamic State. As this newspaper has recognised previously, this could invite pragmatic assessments of the interests of Tehran and Damascus. As odious as these regimes undoubtedly are, they have a mutual interest in overcoming the ruthless barbarians of Islamic State. Mr Putin’s aggressive action means he is already hitting not just Islamic State but other anti-Assad forces. So the focus of US diplomacy should be on turning the attention of all parties to the common enemy of Islamic State. Three years after talking about so-called red lines in Syria, Mr Obama can’t be surprised that Assad is not today’s priority. The overt flexing of power by Moscow and the escalating refugee crisis emanating from the region mean restoring order in those parts of northwestern Iraq and northeastern Syria taken by Islamic State must be the priority.

Australian personnel are in the region, flying strike missions into Syria. Clarity around objectives is imperative, as are safeguards to prevent friction with Russian and Syrian forces. That Russia promotes a UN Security Council resolution to authorise anti-Islamic State action while leaving Assad in power says much about US passivity. Mr Putin is exploiting a vacuum, and gambling that after annexing Crimea from Ukraine and thumbing his nose at the world over the downing of flight MH17 he will again be untouched by international ramifications. Shirt-fronts aside, his bellicose diplomacy and nationalist expansion have been free from serious consequences. Now the US and its allies must do all they can to ensure Mr Putin’s main target is our shared enemy, Islamic State.