bashar al assad which effectively means cutting a deal with bashar al assad, with iran, and the russians. add up the consequences and they re pretty grim not only from a humanitarian at some point but they re grim from the at some point of human interests. going back to jim baker s state department in the late 80s, early 90s, through the various state departments we ve had up until this one. i m trying to think back. how many decades of sort of american policy in the middle east has been set back by this one decision? a fundamental element of what our policy has been all along was to ensure that the united states was the main outside power who could try to promote stability on the one hand, ensure that the russians didn t become a source of instability and also ensure that the iranians couldn t extend their influence against american friends. what we now have is a posture