Syria, more dangerous than Iraq

Long after the fall of the Soviet Union, there persists a Russian sphere of influence in the world. Love it or loathe it, Russia still matters.

I suppose the reasons are partly historical. It matters today because it mattered yesterday. The relationships between the elites in Russia and those in North Korea, Cuba or elsewhere don't disappear over night.

Russia also remains a major arms supplier. And in some ex Soviet countries, Russian is still a significant language.

But the reasons are not so important. The fact remains that Russian is still important in some places. In particular, Russia matters in Syria.

Back in the cold war, most nations were either in the Soviet or the US column. Syria was firmly in the Soviet column. Today, Russia's only Mediterranean base is in Syria.

Iraq was never in the Soviet Column. Iraq was a firm ally of the west when Saddam chose to start gassing his own civilians into submission. Iraq remained in the US column when Saddam gassed his Iranian neighbours in the gulf war.

So while the Russians opposed the invasion of Iraq, it did not pose an sort of threat to their sphere of influence, so long as Iran (Western column until the Islamic revolution, thereafter kind of non aligned with Soviet leanings) was left untouched. Iranian power and influence were much enhanced by the Western invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Russia never did that much to help the Iraqi regime. Why should it?

But Syria is different. Syria is still an ally of Russia. Syria is an ally of Iran. Syria provides access to the Mediterranean for both these allies.

Syria is an ally that neither of these countries feels able to lose.

So that is why Russia is busy sending anti ship missiles to Syria.

Unfortunately, the strategic location, and the value to rivals makes Syria a prize worth fighting for.

Pretty soon we could be seeing a Russian fleet in Cyprus. Iranian revolutionary guards in Damascus. Hezbollah guerrillas in Aleppo. This will destabilise Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, even Saudi Arabia.

The Arab monarchies of the gulf think they are ever so clever. They may have lost ground to Iran with the Shia take over of Iraq, but they reckon the same demographic logic will force Syria from the Shia to the Sunni camp.

They think they can ride the tiger of the Arab revolutionary wave (which we used to call he Arab spring) through Damascus, and stop it before it reaches Bahrain, Oman or Qatar.

Qatar, the home of Al Jazeera has been exposed along with Saudi Arabia as a major financer of the Syrian opposition. Do these countries think they will remain aloof and immune from the civil war in Syria? However it began, Syria is now in a civil war.

Russia cannot afford for Assad to lose this civil war. This line up of great powers makes this conflict much more dangerous than Iraq. Should Obama sake American prestige on removing Assad, things will only get worse.

Many 'hawks' in Washington are keen for Obama to do just that. Perhaps they think it will somehow help Israel, despite the instability that would ensue on he Northern border. Perhaps they think cutting the supply lines from Iran to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon is worth the risk.

When a new supply line opens from Iran to Bahrain and the Eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia, which are both majority Shia, will it still be worth it? If the Assad regime does fall, whoever takes over will be no more pro western than the regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They will be virulently anti Israel.