The Economist Calls for Russia To Be Driven Out of the Mediterranean

Dec. 13—A Dec. 10 article in The Economist from London hopes that the fall of Bashar al-Assad in Syria will quickly lead to the expulsion of Russia from their naval base in Tartus, which they have had since 1971. Headlined “Syrian Rebels Have Dealt a Blow to Vladimir Putin’s Naval Ambitions. The loss of a key Mediterranean port could hobble the Russian navy,” the article focuses on the strategic importance that the West would derive from denying Russia access to the Mediterranean altogether.

Back in 1971, “the Soviet Union signed a deal with Syria to lease a port at Tartus on Syria’s coast. That enduring Russian military presence now hangs by a thread, following the swift collapse of the Assad regime. The Kremlin appears to have avoided a panicked and disorderly departure, but its influence on NATO’s southern flank is likely to wane,” The Economist hopes.

Although Russia is trying to negotiate with the new Syria authorities to be able to keep the port, Michael Kofman of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told The Economist that Russia will fail. “One way or another, Moscow will likely have to abandon its bases in Syria,” Kofman stated.

American Enterprise Institute ideologue Michael Rubin has an even more aggressive idea: the U.S. should take over the Tartus naval base. In a Dec. 8 column published on AEI’s website, Rubin argues that incoming President Trump should make a deal with the Alawite majority population in Syria’s Latakia province, where the base is located: “The United States would support Alawi autonomy in Latakia to mirror the Kurds’ autonomy in northeastern Syria. The U.S. Navy would be willing to defend the Alawis with air power should Syrian Sunni forces seek to push into the region. In exchange, the United States would take over the Russian Naval base at Tartus,” Rubin writes. "Without a base in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Russian Navy could no longer easily ply its waters….

“What could be better from Trump’s focus on the bottom line for Russian taxpayers to have paid for the facility’s reconstruction and upgrades?” he asks. “Nor does a U.S. presence mean antagonism with the new Syrian regime; if anything, a U.S. no-fly zone over Latakia can give the new Syrian regime in Damascus [an] excuse to end the civil war.”

While such visions represent wet dreams of the neo-con crowd and their liberal ally war hawks, sources report that the emerging Syrian government appears willing to renegotiate the lease on the base> More importantly, there are pressures coming from inside Syria to seek an expulsion of U.S. forces from Syria. "Trump may have spoken too much when he was quick to call the collapse og Assad a defeat for Putin," said a source. "It was, but you don't need to rub it in anybody's face. What is likely the best result would be a neutral Syria, that maintains relations with all its neighbors, including Iran and Israel, as well as Russia, to the advantage of no one, and benefit of all, especially Syria. In that case, the base cn stay."