Politico
Allegations that Russia is trying to hack the U.S. presidential election are giving ammunition to critics of President Barack Obama’s struggling effort to bring peace to Syria — a case of bruising campaign politics rattling delicate foreign policy.
In recent weeks, Secretary of State John Kerry has been pushing a proposal that reportedly allows for U.S. intelligence and military cooperation with Russia on airstrikes that target terrorist groups in Syria, such as the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra or the Islamic State. The Russians, in return, would be expected to sideline Syrian President Bashar Assad’s air units, which have been blamed for numerous attacks on civilians in the Arab state.
The overall goal is to reduce the killing of civilians and somehow pave a path for a peace settlement in Syria, where hundreds of thousands of people have died since March 2011, a major stain on Obama’s foreign policy legacy.
But the U.S. plan has already drawn criticism inside and outside government ranks. Some naysayers argue it is a slippery slope of a sellout to Russia. Others say that while working with Russia is not a bad idea, America’s unwillingness to use military force against Assad has left the U.S. with little leverage.
Now, claims that Russian-linked hackers were behind the release of thousands of Democratic National Committee emails gives skeptics a new reason to urge caution. The hacking is all the more sensational because it appears to aid Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who has spoken kindly of Russian President Vladimir Putin and whom the Kremlin’s media apparatus clearly favors in the race against Democrat Hillary Clinton.
“We have to have our eyes wide open when we’re trying to cooperate with Russia,” said Evelyn Farkas, a former top Pentagon official and Russia specialist. “They have objectives that run counter to ours at the macro level, and it appears that they are meddling in our domestic electoral process. I am highly skeptical that we will come to any agreement under the current circumstances with the Russians that will affect the lives of the bulk of Syrians in a positive way.”
A senior Obama administration official told POLITICO that the U.S. is aware of the pitfalls of dealing with the Russians. “Nothing that we’re doing with them on Syria is based on or requires us to trust them,” the official insisted. “None of this is like we’re hoping they do this or requires their good faith. It’s just either delivered on their end or they don’t.”
Another administration official, meanwhile, told POLITICO that if Russia were found to be responsible for the hacking, any action the U.S. takes in response would have to consider the impact on other areas in which Washington is seeking Russian cooperation.
The hacking allegations also come at an unusually sensitive time in the Syria conflict. Obama has less than six months left in office to make a difference there. And there’s a sense within the administration that if the latest proposal to Russia doesn’t work, a brand new strategy is needed on Syria, though it’s not clear what that would be.
Kerry met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov last week on the proposed cooperation, and the pair are due to meet again soon to iron out the details. The FBI, meanwhile, announced Monday it would investigate the DNC hacking.
The Russian Embassy did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but Putin is unlikely to admit any role in the hacking. (The Russian leader has in the past accused the United States of trying to influence elections in his country.)
Russia and the U.S. have managed to work together on some fronts despite their growing differences on the global scene. Russia supported the Iran nuclear deal, which gave Iran sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program. (Worth noting: Iran, like Russia, supports the Assad regime in Syria.) Moscow and Washington also cooperated in removing chemical weapons from Syria after evidence emerged that Assad used them against civilians.
But the two countries also have a growing list of disputes beyond the Middle East, not the least of which is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has led the U.S. to level sanctions on Russia. And the administration is frustrated that Russia has not been able to pressure Assad to respect a cease-fire that is now largely in tatters in Syria.
Still, Moscow is unlikely to let U.S. allegations about election meddling affect its decision-making in Syria, including on whether to cooperate on airstrikes, said Randa Slim, an analyst with the Middle East Institute.
“The U.S. proposed plan meets a long-sought Russian demand for better intelligence and military coordination with the U.S. in Syria. It serves one of Russia’s interests in Syria,” Slim said. “The question that should be asked is whether this plan serves U.S. interests in Syria? Except for the White House, most of official D.C. does not think so.”
Robert Ford, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria, noted that Russia has repeatedly launched its own airstrikes against civilians and moderate anti-Assad rebel factions that have been supported by the United States. When Russians carry out strikes against such targets, they often argue they were bombing terrorist groups — one reason Kerry would prefer to coordinate the strikes with Moscow.
While the U.S. may believe that peace talks are the only path to success in Syria, Russia clearly thinks it can impose a military solution by shoring up Assad, Ford said, adding that Putin’s claim that he was withdrawing Russian forces from Syria earlier this year was a mere adjustment of forces and a “great PR stunt.”
“Any estimate of whether or not we can work with the Russians depends on an assessment of their intent, and their intent does not look like it can synchronize with American goals of prioritizing the fight against extremism,” said Ford, now a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.
Philip Gordon, a former top Obama administration official now with the Council on Foreign Relations, agreed that the hacking claims “will only further raise skepticism across the political spectrum about working with Russia.” But he defended Kerry’s efforts to engage Moscow, saying they are worth trying “in the absence of perfect alternatives.”
Gordon, who is an adviser to Clinton, also noted that critics of Kerry’s plan “should consider what U.S. foreign policy would look like with a Trump administration whose ties with Russia and sympathy for its leader seem extensive.”