Responding to ISIS and the Syrian Refugee Crisis Is Dividing Policymakers Both in Washington and Moscow

Responding to ISIS and the Syrian Refugee Crisis Is Dividing Policymakers Both in Washington and Moscow

Responding to ISIS and the Syrian Refugee Crisis Is Dividing Policymakers Both in Washington and Moscow

Will the result be a spreading or curtailing of the new US-Russian Cold War?

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Nation contributing editor Stephen F. Cohen and John Batchelor continue their weekly discussion of the new Cold War. Pointing out that Senator Marco Rubio’s recent statement, “We do not welcome Russia’s assistance against ISIS,” has long reflected bipartisan opinion in Washington, Cohen emphasizes that leading representatives of the Obama Administration have changed their minds and are now exploring President Vladimir Putin’s proposal for Russia to join the military struggle against the Islamic State in Syria. If such a coalition develops, it could ease the US-Russian confrontation over another civil war, the one in Ukraine.

In Moscow, however, Putin’s overture to Washington is not going unchallenged. Some of his own advisers, recalling the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, are warning against any substantial Russian military involvement in Syria, while Putin’s ultra-nationalist opposition is asserting that he will use cooperation with Washington in Syria to “sell out” Russian-backed rebels in Eastern Ukraine.

In addition, high-level officials in Moscow are openly debating whether or not Russia should open its borders to refugees fleeing the fighting in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the US-backed government in Kiev, seizing upon the visit of a NATO delegation, escalated the rhetoric of the Cold War by calling for full NATO membership for Ukraine. As Cohen argued months ago, the new Cold War cannot be confined to Ukraine. As happened during the preceding Cold War, “linkages” are rapidly spreading from Europe to the Middle East.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x