I don't need to detail this much: it has been openly in the news that the US is critical of Russian support for Assad and is actively trying to thwart military aid to Assad, as well as passively by letting stooges within EU governments act on its behalf:
Google: "France attempts to block Russian military deployment in Syria"
Google: "Germany's Merkel sees need to cooperate with Russia on Syria"
Google: "Madness of Blockading Syria’s Regime"
(I can only provide url's after 15 posts)
Previously support for ISIS was behind the scenes, while publicly pretending to oppose it and pretending that less than 5 airstrikes per day (only a year or so revised to ~12) is going to make ISIS go away.
My in group/out group filter almost misfired, seeing this for a CT post until i realized you were pointing out the strategic quandary here.
Its an interesting point because it makes clear the broader geostrategic confusion now in place - we really have to see 2003 as a departure from what was the organizing principle of the ME for American planners.
That was a deliberate building up of a Sunni Axis with which to keep Iran quarantined. As many people have pointed out, removing Saddam was a huge strategic boon to Iran - whose own gravitational force was sure to bring Iraq closer to it's orbit. The Saddam regime was essentially an artificial blockage to what should be a part of Iran's mini-Monroe Doctrine.
So after 2003 the US upsets the order that it had fostered - the one that relied on stoking fears of Iran's enemies. Helped sell weapons, helped ensure continued access to resources in these nations - a host of benefits were accruing. But underneath it was building a slow steady reckoning that would one day have to happen between the two sides of this fault line that was encouraged. At times, the US has had to work closely with Iran to stabilize Iraq and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. This worries American allies in the region who then shore up their support for local proxy forces - if their benefactor's allegiance can't be trusted and they are now in league with Iran - better to shore up your own influence where you can using your own resources.
So what's been happening since 2003 is a broader destabilizing wave - a collapsing of an old order and a replacement with the new. This will shake out over another decade at least if not longer. It doesn't seem like the Bush geostrategic vision really considered just how their wars would threaten the order that, until then, had been a cornerstone of US power in the world. Since they were to be over quickly, I believe they imagined they could retain all the benefits of their position - and just add way more benefits as the ME flowered into democracy from the benevolent application of Shock and Awe.
And this destabilizing wave gives you weird things like the US fighting ISIS but then not wanting the enemy of ISIS to be that strong - and now Turkey is looking to knock back the kurds and Iran is in the strongest geostrategic position it has enjoyed since 1979.
One thing is sure, the interests of regional players are likely to shape the next ME more than any outside power will. The old days are over.
