The President's recent announcement that US Special Forces will now operate on the ground in eastern Syria has drawn fire from across the political spectrum for various reasons. My sense is that critics are missing what is really going on here - a bold move by Obama to upend the current power arrangements in the Middle East in a way that over time will return stability to the region.
President Obama is drawing criticism from across the board right now on his recent announcement to allow US Special Forces to operate on the ground in eastern Syria. Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) has already drawn a distinction with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over this issue - Sanders opposes and Hillary backs. On the GOP side, they are all over the map on the reasons, but most scourge Obama. If you look to the pundits, Obama is also getting flayed either as a war-monger by the left or a weakling by rightists who want even more force used.
To the public, Obama's Syria policy seems a mess. He hasn't seemed to have decided what he wants. He backed off airstrikes on the regime after it crossed his "red line" by making a nerve gas attack on civilians. He has called jihadists the "JV team" before they made their greatest advances. Putin has seemed decisive by comparison.
However, I think Obama does have a plan. It is a very bold one, but it has an internal logic and it just may work.
Before getting into that, we need to understand Syria is a cat's cradle of disasters most of which are not things the US is responsible for or can affect. The Syrian Civil War need not have taken the course it has. But the Assad-Maalouf clan, backed by powerful allies who see his continued power as part of their core interests, chose to try and emulate his late father and smash even peaceful protest with an iron fist. It hasn't worked, but much of what happened next was enabled by a variety of regional actors as well.
Professor Juan Cole's blog should be required reading for anyone wanting insights into Syria and what is happening there. He is generally critical of most US policies, but he has solid understandings of the region:
http://www.juancole.com/
Anyway, here is what I think Obama wants. Whether he gets it is another thing.
The Iran nuclear deal is part of an ambitious attempt by Obama, before he leaves office, to at least begin the process of bringing Iran back into diplomatic relations. Obama recognizes that a younger Iranian generation is coming up and they'd like to get out from under the thumbs of the theocracy. Iran is real country, with an ancient history and the potential, if we can move things in a positive direction, to becoming over time a partner with the West over shared interests in a stable region. This will require trade-offs, with the US recognizing Iran's regional role and interests, and Iran for its part moving away from attempting to spread its influence through terror groups and subversion. Ultimately, whether this pans out will be up to the Iranian people - they will need another Green Revolution of some kind.
How does Syria play into this? Ultimately, I think that once it is hammered home neither side will gain a military victory, the resultant agreement will include an implicit understanding of Shia majority rule in Iraq and Sunni majority rule in Syria, with protections for minorities in both. There will need to be a Treaty of Westphalia type of agreement that will require some give and take.
US Special Forces and US airpower, should they succeed in enabling a Kurd-Arab coalition in rolling back ISIS in eastern Syria, will accomplish three things. First, an ISIS-free Eastern Syria helps efforts to defeat ISIS in Iraq, where the US and Iran are in a de-facto alliance. Second, an ISIS roll-back takes the ISIS pressure off anti-Assad rebels around Hama and Aleppo, who have seen ISIS exploit regime attacks with their own. Third, eastern Iraq becomes a secure area for Syrian rebels to resupply and recover. Items two and three contribute, by strengthening the non-ISIS Syrian rebels, to the goal of making it clear to Russia, Iran and Hezbollah that a military victory by the regime is not in the cards. Obama may already suspect they know this.
Obama's move is unsettling to Turkey, the Saudis, US neocons and the US anti-war left.
Turkey is concerned the US Special Forces will abet the goals of the Kurdish nationalists, namely the PKK, which they see (not without reason) as indistinguishable from the Syrian YPG we will be imbedding with. The Saudis see Obama as naive about the prospects of Iran giving up what they see as an imperial project. US Neocons see Obama as deploying a weak half-measure. The anti-war left sees Obama as betraying his pledges.
I think Obama is trying to adapt to circumstances to move forward on a core interest in cooling down the historical stand-off with Iran as a US adversary. The US Special Forces in Syria are designed to work in tandem with US Special Forces already active in Iraq. Bringing down ISIS may help advance multiple interests, including Iran's and Russia's. Let's remember Russia is scared stiff about the thousands of Russian citizens currently fighting with ISIS coming home to the restive Caucasus. Putin is happy Obama decided to keep a US presence in Afghanistan. Iran's interests in Iraq dovetail with the US, with both supporting the Abadi government.
There is also tension between Russian and Iran over Syria the US hopes to exploit - Russia and Iran are more rivals than allies in terms of what sort of successor regime appears in Syria.
Give Obama some credit here. This huge mess is not entirely of his making. He is trying to keep our footprint minimal while still providing some US leverage to steer a solution that will bring us back from the abyss of a deepening regional war that could end up directly involving Turkey, Iran, the Saudis, Egypt, etc. If things get even worse, the current refugee crisis will seem like child's play.
And if, as with Cuba, Obama succeeds in moving towards different relations with Iran, it could have lasting consequences that will help the cause of peace.
None of this has a scintilla chance of happening so long as the abomination that is ISIS continues to exist. All the key players, perhaps with the exception of some in the Turkish security establishment who see ISIS as a lever against the Kurds, have an interest in seeing them gone. The replacement of the so-called Caliphate with a multi-ethnic alliance assisted by the West will help, not hinder, the eventual accommodations we need to reach with everyone, including Russia and Iran.