In the final months of 1979, a series of events with major international consequences occurred. Among the most significant of those was the hostage-taking by Iranian militants at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union.
Reverberations from those events are still being felt nearly 36 years later. And they remind us, or at least they should, of the complexities of the use of power and the costs and effects of intervention. The crescent of crisis that runs from southwest Asia, though the Middle East and on to North Africa presents present challenges as well as dealing with the results of past actions and interventions.
In the case of the Soviet move into Afghanistan, it was in some ways the beginning of the end for the U.S.S.R. The Soviet forces found themselves bogged down in a quagmire, unable to exert control and paying a heavy price. Some referred to that misguided adventure as the Soviets' Vietnam.
Combined with increasingly evident internal weaknesses, and the inability to compete effectively with the United States in an era of a technology-driven economic acceleration, the Soviet Union collapsed. Now, Russian President Vladimir Putin, desperately wanting to flex his muscles and demonstrate that Russia is a major international player, has injected his nation into the morass that is Syria, with air and ground attacks aimed at bolstering the beleaguered Assad regime.
And what of the United States? The takeover of the embassy in Tehran in 1979 followed the overthrow of the Shah and establishment of the Islamic Republic, which had been preceded by a long period of U.S. entanglement with the Shah and Iran, an arrangement that might have brought short-term benefits for the U.S., but resulted in long-term liabilities.
Now, President Obama's administration has engineered a multi-national agreement to restrict Iran's nuclear development, the first significant diplomatic accord with Iran under the current regime, although U.S.-Iran relations remain rocky at best. And while Iran may agree with the U.S. in opposing ISIS, Iran is involved, along with the Russians, in backing the Assad regime in Syria, while the U.S. wants Assad gone.
After four years of civil war in Syria, the country has experienced massive destruction, 250,000 deaths and the largest refugee crisis since World War II. Russian officials say their recent airstrikes are targeting ISIS militants, but most of the strikes are hitting areas where ISIS forces are not present. But Russia is also interested in containing the Islamic State, an organization that includes numerous Chechen fighters, who are anti-Russian.
Dating back to the early Kennedy administration years, aggressive action by the Soviets (now Russians) often came at times when Moscow judged the U.S. to be weakened or preoccupied with other problems. They may have been the case in 1979 with the Soviets emboldened to invade Afghanistan at a time when the Carter administration was focused on Iran.
Some would argue Putin's move in Syria is motivated by the desire to strengthen Russia's hand in the tumultuous region, and is enabled by U.S. preoccupation with the cluster of problems and American determination to limit its own military involvement, following a series of interventions that have not produced the desired results and have left the public war-weary.
Obama doesn't plan to confront Russia over its new role in Syria. American support for those fighting against the Syrian government has had little effect in changing the course of conflict in Syria. And Obama says efforts by Russia and Iran to prop up Assad is "just going to get them stuck in a quagmire," adding that it won't work and "they will be there for a while if they don't take a different course." The Russians should have learned from the misadventure in Afghanistan that airstrikes can't necessarily control the situation on the ground, something the U.S. should know from its actions in Iraq, Libya and Syria.
However, the U.S. president has committed to provide more support to forces fighting against ISIS, which should be a primary U.S. concern. And some prominent American figures, including Hillary Clinton, favor creating "no-fly zones" and "humanitarian corridors" in Syria.
Meanwhile, after 14 years in Afghanistan, the U.S. is finding it very difficult to complete the extraction of American forces there and the political-military situation remains very precarious.
Sharp divisions within Turkey have recently added to the turmoil in the region.
Making sense of all this isn't easy. What should be clear, however, is that intervention is fraught with peril. And it often leads to blowback, heightened instability and over-extension by those who intervene.
It may be said that non-intervention is another form of intervention; doing little or nothing is, in effect, a form of action. What should be said and understood is that intervention can carry a high cost and must be accompanied by an exit plan -- and that it is too easy to get bogged down.
Commentary on 10/14/2015