The fact that there ain't no more Soviet Union sponsoring international terror through its client states in the region like Syria and using its nuclear threat to keep those states from being punished for their behavior makes this an entirely different world from that of 1983. Because he completely fails to understand this rather large and visible distinction, Leverett must be a professional quality bonehead.

Yes, the fall of the USSR solved the three "intractable problems": South Africa, Northern Ireland and israel. None of those areas are strategically important anymore.

This brings up the point I belabor. We want a pro-American regime but any liberal democracy is sufficiently pro-American for our security interests.

1. What should be noted about this article is its attitude that the whole issue of Lebanese independence is viewed in the context of Syrian interests and Israeli interests (conflated with US interests), i.e., that Lebanese independence has no value in and of itself.

Moreover, the author insists that a) Syria has legitimate strategic interests, which would seem to justify its continued occupation of Lebanon, or at least justify Syria's "concerns" about leaving; and that b) frustrating Syria's strategic interests "would accommodate Israel," the implication being that anything that would presumably accommodate Israel is suspect.

One might find it all rather curious that Lebanese independence is framed in what is bad for Syria---or for that matter, good for Israel---all Israel wants is a responsible government in Beirut and a non-threatening northern border, which desire (presumably unjustified) Hizbullah---with Syrian and Iranian backing---is determined to frustrate (justifiedly?).

But then, this is practically identical to the attitude of those many who viewed the war against Saddam as having nothing really to do either with American interests (self defense) or the interest of Iraqi citizens, but having everything to do with Israeli interests, thus exacerbating its illegitimacy. This to the point where it was commonly held that the Iraqi war would be shameful if Israel were to benefit from it in any way. (And to hell with any possible benfits accruing to others.)

Good old reliable NYT with its cutting edge analyses....

2. The fact that there ain't no more Soviet Union sponsoring international terror through its client states in the region like Syria and using its nuclear threat to keep those states from being punished for their behavior makes this an entirely different world from that of 1983.

Hold yer horses. I find it difficult to understand why so many are so willing to overlook what Putin is doing so clearly: filling the void left by the breakup of the USSR. How else to explain the supportive relationship with Saddam? The alliance with Iran and assistance with Iran's nuclear weapons development? The pledge to sell advanced weaponry to Syria? The threat, since that's what it is, to sell weaponry to the Palestinian Authority. All this added to the EU's unofficial alignment with Russia, together with the cozying up of Turkey to Russia as one of the costs of acceptance into the EU---though in Turkey's case, they are alarmed at the US muscular stance in the region, and very nervous about the implications of purported American support for the Kurds (even though such support is predicated as part of an overall Iraqi solution).

Putin has been moving rapidly to reestablish strategic pressures on the US and its interests (whether one wishes to believe that history has ended or not). That this involves assistance to bloodthirsty regimes (or tyrannies in the making) should surprise no one.

But neither is this any excuse to ignore the dynamic.

Barry,

Let us assume that Putin's intentions are every bit as malevolent as Brezhnev's. Even so, he just doesn't have the bankroll. Russia has lost half its population and more than half of its readily extractable mineral wealth and best farmland. It's like watching Howard Lederer be replaced by me at the poker table. The spectre should be infinitely less intimidating.

Russia has at most 1/8 our GDP, and has fewer that half our population and that population is in infinitely worse health. The entire Warsaw Pact and several SSRs are active American allies. We could land an armored division in Riga about 100 miles from St Petersburg and there is nothing the Russians could do. They have much bigger problems than screwing around in the Middle East.

Russian muscle flexing in the Ukraine melted much of Europe's comfort zone with Putin.

I agree with Bart, Russia is playing on the margins.

One thing that I have been struck by in the last few years: the Middle East thugocracy's relative inability to shift gears in the post-Cold War world.

They all (Iraq , Syria, to some extent Iran) have been acting as if the Soviets were still around to protect them .. U.S. could ignore them until 9/11 , but here we are almost 4 years later, and Assad is still acting as if he holds some cards. (well, up to this week, he did)

I guess it's a function of crummy systems producing crummy leaders, 'cause Assad and Mubarak (and until his death, Arafat) don't seem to really get it.

thoughts?