“Israel’s” military recklessness was responsible for the tragic series of events that led to Syria mistakenly shooting down a Russian jet, but any resultant tensions between them because of this would be contrary to both of their interests but align perfectly with what the US and Iran want for very different reasons.
The Russian-“Israeli” Strategic Partnership has hitherto been a game-changing dynamic in contemporary Mideast politics, especially seeing as how it represents both an unprecedented geostrategic “rebalancing” for both parties while simultaneously allowing Moscow to “balance” Iran on behalf of the so-called “international community” by passively facilitating Tel Aviv’s strikes against Tehran’s military assets in Syria. This arrangement has worked out to each of their grand strategic interests to the perceived “zero-sum” detriment of their “traditional” American and Iranian partners, both of which feel extremely uncomfortable watching this “win-win” relationship unfold because they somewhat understandably believe that it’s against their own long-term regional interests.
It’s for this reason why “Israel’s” military recklessness last night in using a Russian Il-20 as cover during its latest bombing of Syria (well over the 200th that it’s committed in the past 18 months alone) is so counterproductive to this partnership’s interests and even a betrayal of the very spirit behind it, but cynically represents a last-ditch “opportunity” by the US and Iran to divide those two once and for all. There’s a high likelihood that the US will try to play up the Western Mainstream Media’s fake news about President Putin’s non-existent “anti-Semitism” to its “Israeli” partners while Iran will do the same vis-à-vis its Russian ones by pushing the narrative that Russian-“Israeli” ties somehow “discredit” Moscow’s multipolar grand strategy.
Basically, the US and Iran will try to play mind games with “Israel” and Russia respectively in order to exacerbate the distrust between them at this very sensitive time and destroy their strategic partnership, with both Great Powers acting independently of one another but still striving for the same outcome.
It will ultimately be up to the “progressive” faction of the Russian and “Israeli” permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep states”) that’s been driving their non-traditional partnership with one another to prevent their aforementioned partners from thwarting their game-changing ties, but they’ll obviously come under considerable pressure from their “traditionalist” rivals who have long held that such a relationship is geostrategically “sacrilegious”. Evidently, it seems like the Russian and “Israeli” “progressives” are concentrated in their Ministries of Foreign Affairs while the “traditionalists” are in the Ministries of Defence, with both President Putin and Netanyahu having attempted to “balance” between these two competing factions up until this point.
It should be noted that any change in the prevailing “progressive” status quo in either of their “deep states” would have additional consequences in possibly contributing to the deterioration of Russia’s “balancing” act with Saudi Arabia the same as it could do to “Israel’s” incipient one with China, which is exactly what Iran and the US hope to achieve. Tehran is privately disgruntled that Moscow agreed to sell S-400s and other military equipment to Riyadh, the same as Washington is worried that Tel Aviv’s deal to allow Beijing to manage the strategic port of Haifa constitutes a threat to its already declining regional standing. The “progressives” are responsible for these developments, so sidelining them in their “deep states” could have ramifications for these relationships as well.
When all is said and done, what happened last night is undoubtedly the greatest test that the Russian-“Israeli” Strategic Partnership has experienced thus far, and it will either make or break their relationship depending on the outcome of each of their “deep state” ‘struggles’.
DISCLAIMER: The author writes for this publication in a private capacity which is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions of any other media outlet or institution.