Russian intervention in Syria further complicates Mid-East conflicts

WHATEVER the long-term aims of Russia's intervention in Syria, it is obvious that the regime of President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus has been propped up. It is now in no serious danger of being forcibly removed from office - either by Western-backed rebels or Islamic State (IS) forces - anytime soon. In response, Washington has decided that it will no longer train and equip rebels opposed to the Assad regime; in future, there will be supplies of arms only to those the Obama administration thinks will oppose the IS, at least ostensibly.

Earlier, the United States and its allies that have been supporting the Sunni rebels opposed to the Shia-dominated Syrian government reacted with consternation at the audacity and scale of the Russian operation. US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter warned that Russia's action was akin to pouring "gasoline on the fire". The US has ruled out joining forces with Russia in pursuit of IS forces. Rhetoric aside, it is also obvious that neither the US nor anyone else has the appetite for a direct confrontation with Moscow. At the same time, given the scale of the operation it cannot be assumed Russian President Vladimir Putin's decision to build up his forces in Syria is limited to merely protecting Mr Assad and his government or Russia's naval base in that country. Could it be, as has been suggested in the Western media, that all this effort is merely to demonstrate that Russia remains a great power; that it has the ability to influence events in the Middle East? Even if that were the case, Moscow's current course of action seems to be a very risky way to achieve that goal.

It is worth noting that no outside power has profited from an intervention in that part of the world. America and its allies have little to show for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Bush administration's 2003 campaign, in fact, strengthened Washington's then-arch rival Iran. As part of the Soviet Union, Russia saw more than 15,000 of its people dead after they went into Afghanistan in 1979, a misadventure that contributed to the break-up of the Soviet Union itself. There is also a view that the Russian intervention is about energy supplies. Russia is a major oil and gas producer, and Saudi Arabia's decision to hold down prices in an effort to regain market share against shale oil producers has damaged the Russian economy. By intervening in Syria - with the backing of Shia states Iran and Iraq - it is sending a message to the Saudis and other Sunni regimes that it is a player in the politics of oil. It remains to be seen if the Saudis will be intimidated by the Russian military presence in the neighbourhood. Plenty of private money, much of it from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, has been flowing to various groups, including IS and Al-Qaeda affiliates, opposed to the Assad regime.