Russia Warns of General War in the Middle-East

From the New York Times, via MSNBC:

Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, warned Wednesday that outside encouragement of antigovernment uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa could lead to “a very big war that will cause suffering not only to countries in the region, but also to states far beyond its boundaries.”

Mr. Lavrov’s annual news conference was largely devoted to a critique of Western policies in Iran and Syria, which he said could lead to a spiral of violence.

His remarks came on the heels of a report on state-controlled television that accused the American ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, who has been in Moscow for less than a week, of working to provoke a revolution here. Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, at an impromptu meeting with prominent editors, also unleashed an attack on the liberal radio station Ekho Moskvy, which he said was serving American interests.

Mr. Lavrov said Russia would use its position on the United Nations Security Council to veto any United Nations authorization of military strikes against the government of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria . The United Nations has repeatedly called for Syria end a crackdown on opposition demonstrators, which Arab League monitors say resulted in hundreds of deaths over the past month.

“If someone conceives the idea of using force at any cost — and I’ve already heard calls for sending some Arab troops to Syria — we are unlikely to be able to prevent this,” Mr. Lavrov said. “But this should be done on their own initiative and should remain on their conscience. They won’t get any authorization from the Security Council.”

Mr. Lavrov said foreign governments were arming “militants and extremists” in Syria, and he gave a bristling response to Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, who on Tuesday expressed concern about possible Russian arms shipments to Syria.

“We don’t find it necessary to explain or justify anything,” Mr. Lavrov said. “We are only trading goods with Syria that are not prohibited by international law.”

Mr. Lavrov offered a similarly grave message about the possibility of a military strike against Iran, which he said would be a “catastrophe.” He said sanctions now being proposed against Tehran were “intended to have a smothering effect on the Iranian economy and the Iranian population, probably in the hopes of provoking discontent.”

It is easy to discount's Russia's interest in this matter as being self-serving, to-wit: protecting regimes friendly to Russia and protecting arms sales and other "big ticket" sales to Middle-Easter despots. However, there are a reasons not to complete ignore their concerns and reasoning.

First, it should be obvious that Russia will act in its self-interest. There is an old expression (I don't remember the source) that nations do not have friends, they only have interests. It is a mistake to view Russia's interests toward Syria and Iran as in any way representative of friendship. Russia wants stable countries on its borders. A Syria that degenerates into civil war or inter-tribal conflict is a more serious threat to Russia than to the U.S. if for no other reason than the physical proximity, and that the unrest could spread among the former Soviet nations along Russia's southern front and even into provinces along its southern border. Russia wants a stable Syria in the same way we want a stable Mexico. I'm not suggesting that we should trust that Russia is looking out for our interests (except to the extent it advances their own interests), but that they raise some valid points.

Second, the Russian foreign minister is correct that the "Arab Spring" is just going to be the prelude to more regional wars. We are deluding ourselves that democracies can be established in most of these Middle-Eastern nations. They are too strongly tied to tribes and xenophobic religions to ever form truly democratic governments. Iraq is already heading into civil war and we've barely left. Egypt presents a dismal picture, with the Muslim Bortherhood and the Army probably going to face off over power, and the Copts being driven from the country or exterminated. What the "Arab Spring" actually portends is  that the Middle-East is descending into chaos.

What the U.S. needs to do is carefully examine its interests and priorities. The situation reminds me of a story of a hiker and his son that came across a rattle snake sunning itself in the middle of the trail. The hiker grabbed a stick to kill the rattle snake and began to cautiously approach the snake. Then his son asked why they couldn't just walk around the snake. The U.S. faces the same situation in the Middle-East. We have an instinctive dislike of despotic rulers. We seem to automatically like anyone that says the magic word "democracy." However, we are messing with snakes where, although we can probably kill them, we are needlessly stirring up trouble where we don't need to.
We had nothing to gain by Mubarak being removed from power; we had very little interest in regime change in Libya; and I think it is very debatable whether we have any significant national interests in Syria. Iran is a different issue, because of their nuclear program, but someone is working on that issue.