Secretary of State John Kerry met with President Vladimir V. Putin in Moscow late Thursday night to discuss a proposed extensive military cooperation agreement that for the first time would coordinate American and Russian air attacks on the Islamic State and the Nusra Front,Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria.
The proposed agreement calls for the creation of a joint military command center staffed by military and intelligence officers who would share information so as to permit “integrated operations.” It has generated deep unease at the Pentagon and in some quarters of the State Department, where it is seen as too conciliatory to both the Russians and the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.
A top State Department official said in an interview on Thursday that critics of the agreement were being alarmist, pointing out that the proposal requires Syria’s Air Force — which has routinely bombed civilian areas — to be largely grounded.
Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said Thursday that much work remained to be done. “We’ve always made clear that we would welcome a military contribution from Russia, as long as they were focused on ISIL and Al Qaeda’s presence in Syria,” Mr. Earnest said, referring to the Islamic State. “Unfortunately, we’ve seen them devote too much attention to using their military might to prop up the Assad regime.”
The agreement has also raised alarms because it might lead the United States to countenance or even participate in strikes against groups fighting Mr. Assad. One of the great complications of the Syrian civil war is figuring out which groups should be considered rebels focused on ousting the Assad government — a goal the United States supports — and which are aligned with Al Qaeda or the Islamic State, organizations that Washington has designated as terrorist and has vowed to defeat.
Andrew J. Tabler of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said in a telephone interview that the proposed agreement, if put in place, would ensure that the government remained in power, that the civil war in Syria would continue and that terrorism would continue to spread in the Middle East and around the world. “The Russians want Assad to stay,” Mr. Tabler said. “They’re very upfront about that. And by giving into this agreement, we’re buying into that.”
Russia’s stated position is that it is not wedded to Mr. Assad personally, but does not wish to see any head of state removed by what it sees as Western-engineered change.
The other complication is that the Syrians and Russians have routinely undermined previous commitments regarding cease-fires and other measures to spare civilian lives. In just the past week, the Syrian Army has repeatedly announced cease-fires only to conduct an extensive military campaign around the rebel-held section of the stricken city of Aleppo, leaving about 300,000 people there besieged. The government is also advancing on the Damascus suburb of Daraya, one of the first areas to revolt against the government, with many of its 8,000 residents fearing an imminent massacre. In recent days, a refugee camp near the Jordanian border was bombed, and civilians were killed. Whether it was the Russians or Syrians who undertook the operation is not known.
“It is true that Assad has, time and time again, broken commitments that either they had made or Russia had made on their behalf,” Mr. Earnest said, adding that the Russians can get things done in Syria if they so choose. “We know that the Russian government has influence with the Assad regime in a way that can have a tangible impact on the ground; it’s just a matter of President Putin deciding whether or not he cares enough about his own integrity to use it. And that’s the question that they face.”
The proposed agreement with the Russians, first reported by The Washington Post, would create a joint command center in or near Amman, Jordan, to coordinate an intensified bombing campaign against the two militant groups. Both Russia and the United States have been attacking the Islamic State, though acting separately, with minimal coordination to avoid unintended conflict between their warplanes. Yet most of Russia’s airstrikes have been aimed not at the Islamic State but at other groups fighting Mr. Assad, including the Nusra Front and American-backed rebel groups.
The Nusra Front has been one of the most effective anti-Assad forces, and because of that United States-backed rebel groups often coordinate their activities with its units. Russia has argued that means that Washington is effectively supporting Nusra, and that the American-backed groups are legitimate targets. So a joint campaign against Nusra would not only appear to concede Russia’s point, but could also bring American firepower to bear against the strongest anti-Assad military force and a sometime partner of Washington’s allies.
Up to now, the United States has carried out occasional strikes against what have been described as senior Qaeda figures in Syria. But it has refrained from systematic attacks against the Nusra Front, whose ranks are heavily Syrian, including many who left less extreme rebel groups because Nusra was better armed and financed. Faysal Itani, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, was also critical of the proposed military coordination with the Russians. He said that combined attacks against Nusra would effectively end the Syrian opposition, cementing Mr. Assad’s grip on power and enraging most Syrians.
The United States proposal states that American and Russian officials would share information on the locations of rebel groups to ensure that strikes aimed at Nusra did not hit United States-backed groups. In the past, those groups — as well as some American officials — have worried that Russia might use that information for targeting, rather than avoiding, them.
The proposed agreement also raises questions of whether the United States would eventually come under Russian pressure to attack other rebel groups, like the Army of Islam, a leader of which led the opposition negotiating team at the last round of peace talks in Geneva.
Any formal agreement with the Russians could also suggest that the Obama administration was warming to Mr. Putin, contradicting efforts to isolate him after Russia’s annexation of Crimea two years ago, its continuing efforts to undermine Ukraine and its increasingly aggressive posture toward Europe. Last week’s NATO summit meeting showed that cracks are already beginning to appear in the alliance’s hard-line stance against Moscow, with Germany, France and Italy all showing signs of wavering.
Nevertheless, the top State Department official, who requested anonymity to speak about a sensitive diplomatic matter, said that any military cooperation in the Syrian theater would have no effect on the wider relationship with Russia, adding that differences remained over Ukraine and Crimea.
