Sure, nice work if you can get it:
Now, for the first time in the conflict's seven-year history, all meaningful territory in Syria is either under the direct control of loyalist forces or subject to a significant foreign presence. The Syrian Democratic Forces and allied U.S. troops control the northeastern portion of the country, while Turkish troops are embedded in northern Aleppo province and Idlib province, where the last of the rebel forces are holding out.
It is President Bashar al Assad's government, however, that controls most of Syria, with help from allies such as Iran, Russia and Hezbollah. Each of these partners has a different vision for the country's path forward. But Moscow — having already achieved its primary goal of securing its position, and that of al Assad's government, in the country — is eager to stabilize the war and reap the rewards of its involvement in the conflict. To that end, Russia has crafted a multipronged plan, one that is full of risk and whose success is far from certain.
Rebuilding Assad-controlled Syria with other people's money is just one task. Keeping Iran and Israel from battling out in a Syrian battlefield is another. Will Turkey fight to keep Assad out of Idlib and other regions in the north? And how does Russia react if Assad tries to retake the Kurdish-held northeast which America watches over behind the Euphrates River-based Deconfliction Line (DCL) or the Tanf region that spans the border with Jordan and Iraq?
Russia is clearly worried about their ability to get peace and quiet:
Reacting to comments by U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton about Washington's possible strong reaction in the event of a chemical or biological attack in the Syrian region of Idlib, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said: "We warn the Americans and their allies against taking new reckless steps in Syria."
That's a bit much coming from the people who engineered the 2013 deal that was supposed to get rid of Assad's chemical weapons capability but which I said would simply save Assad.
I'm of the opinion that we should never consider doing anything that reduces the costs to Russia of consolidating their Syria position. Every ruble spent there is money that can't be spent to cause trouble in Ukraine, Belarus, or the Baltic Sea region.
UPDATE: Russia will need to reorganize Syria's military and help get rid of the Iranian-organized militias:
[To] keep the country in order, to expand Russian influence in Syrian force structures and to maintain at least a mere facade of a political resolution process, Russia needs at least two things. First is Russian participation in the creation of a revamped Syrian military where some former rebel units and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) would be integrated into the armed forces.
Second, Moscow needs to tackle an equally complex challenge of disbanding numerous local militias, particularly the National Defense Forces (NDF), which are virtually a parallel army created by Iran and Hezbollah. The problem of reining in the regime-loyal factions is becoming more urgent, and Damascus seems to welcome Moscow’s role in helping to fix it.
In a world where direct intervention in Syria is not enough of an American interest to carry out, a weak Russia with bases in Syria what manages to eject Iran from Syria is good enough for government work, as far as I'm concerned.
UPDATE: Strategypage says that Israel, America, and Russia agree that Iran must get out of Syria:
Now Russia, the Americans and Israel have agreed to cooperate in getting Iran out of Syria. Turkey and Iraq would also prefer this. Until recently there were few press releases or other official announcements about this but you can see the plan unfolding as Iran finds itself abandoned in Syria and under growing attack.
Turkey and Iraq would prefer that outcome, too. Not that Russia can push Iran out, but they won't resist Israeli attacks that are limited to Iranian targets.
