During his speech at the UN General Assembly (UNGA), US President Obama suggested that the US work with Russia and even Iran to reign in the war in Syria. This willingness to work with adversaries instead of going it alone is a welcome change in policy is reminiscent of how European leadership operates compared to the disastrous cowboy mentality of what was endured during previous administrations. As Obama put it, the “managed transition” is a far cry from the chaos created in Libya and in Iraq before that. The chaos in Libya was the handiwork of Mrs Clinton and nobody has called her out for it so far during the campaign. Is this change of policy coming as a result of the moves Russia has made recently or are we recognising the fact that there are other dynamics at play? Russia has amassed military personnel, including pilots, trainers and equipment. During Putin’s interview with Charlie Rose on CBS, the Russian president left the door open for troop engagement and boots on the ground. Obama insisted at UNGA that Assad must go: “We must recognise that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the pre-war status quo.” After the disastrous eight years of Nouri Al Maliki when Sunnis were sidelined in the political process, the Sunnis in Iraq had nowhere to go. The persecution and murder of Sunni leadership and civilians continued under the watchful eyes of the western backers of Nouri Al Maliki. The army of Muqtada Al-Sadr and Iranian backed militia continued to ethnically cleanse the formerly well-integrated neighbourhoods of Iraq, pushing Sunnis out of their well-established homes and businesses. Islamic State (IS) was created as a result of the power vacuum and came into being for the protection of the displaced Sunnis in Iraq and later Syria. Had IS put on a more humanitarian face and been allowed to consult with western powers it could have been called the Sunni Protection Force (SPF) or something similar. Putin has argued, and he may have a point here, that Assad’s military is the most capable force for fighting IS or any other extremist group that has carved out strongholds and territory in Syria and Iraq, and therefore needs to be strengthened. The conquering of vast swaths of land does not mean that IS has the wherewithal to hold those pieces of barren land where there is no water and nothing can grow. If there is oil beneath that land it will be a dark day in hell before it can be siphoned up for sale for any monetary gains. Obama has rejected Putin’s continued support for Assad although there are no good and viable policy alternatives at Obama’s disposal. The US and its allies have struggled to come to a consensus to create a political process that pushes Assad from power. In this entire fiasco, Russia has provided covert and overt support to Assad and his regime. Sometimes that support has worked against the western powers’ goals and undermined the sanctions that are in place against the Syrian regime. Other times it has helped the rebels and extremists by providing monetary aid and weapons. That is, until now. During the last week or so Russia has been seen deepening its support of Assad, this time much more overtly than in the past. Russia has stationed troops, airplanes and other military equipment in Syria taking up an entire military base, propping up a regime at the brink of collapse. During his speech Obama argued that simply saying that the “alternative is surely worse” is not a solution to the manifold crises that have continued to unfold over the last four years. By some estimates, the conflict has killed more than 250,000 people since it began in 2011, leading to a flood of refugees towards Europe and other countries around the world, and creating a vacuum for IS. The engagement of Syrian forces within a civil war is what allowed these groups to take over undefended territory. During his Charlie Rose interview on CBS’ 60 Minutes programme, Putin seemed clearly focused on his resolve and policy towards Assad’s regime. He said: “There is no other solution to the Syrian crisis than strengthening effective government structures and rendering them help in fighting terrorism.” The terrorism mantra may be coming back to haunt western policymakers. During his address at UNGA Obama took up much more time than the usual 15 minutes allocated to each leader. It was a refreshingly different and much more conciliatory approach than what the world has come to know of the US and its policymakers. Summing up his approach, in the 43-minute speech, to some of the most difficult problems that his administration has faced, he said that while he would not hesitate to use military force when necessary, the world should not be guided by the philosophy that “might makes right”. Continuing his emphasis on diplomacy instead of use of force, he highlighted the recently restored ties with Cuba and the much more contentious but far reaching deal concluded with Iran along with other major powers in Western Europe. He noted that Putin and his newly emboldened Russia had partnered with the US to achieve the Iran deal. Unlike the deal with Iran and restoration of diplomatic ties with Cuba, both highlights of Mr Obama’s tenure and legacy making foreign policy achievements, Syria is turning out to be much more challenging to handle. There has been a series of setbacks including a $ 500 million Pentagon programme that has netted no more than a handful of trained fighters. These fighters were trained to fight extremist elements but the force was seen to unravel and had to turn over equipment and vehicles in return for safe passage. Coupled with a surprise landing of Russian forces and equipment at a base right outside of Damascus this has left very little doubt that the current policy needs a reset. Putin’s war of words continues to increase in intensity and volume. He has been sharply and unequivocally critical of US support for Syrian rebels, describing it as not only illegal but counterproductive. A $ 500 million Pentagon programme to train and arm moderate rebels to fight IS has resulted in just a handful of fighters to bolster airstrikes from a US-led coalition. Is there a way out for Obama to salvage his foreign policy legacy? If the Iran deal sticks and if it passes the next big hurdle without the detractors of that deal undermining it at the international stage his legacy is already cemented along with his diplomatic opening with Cuba and containing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. A successful turnaround in the Syrian theatre will be seen as an extraordinary step. Iraq is the key element. The Haider al-Abadi government must be forced diplomatically to stop isolating the Sunni population of Iraq. There was a time, a very short-lived window of opportunity, when IS could have been contained had the right pressure been applied to protect the Sunni population in both Iraq and later Syria. That opportunity is lost forever. For the short-term, take removing Assad from power off the table. Empower the Syrian forces to take some of the territory back from the rebels, extremists, extortionists and anybody who is using the Syrian and Iraqi population to make money. At the same time, force the Haider al-Abadi government to appoint legitimate representatives for Iraq’s Sunni population. Compel, under the auspices of the Iran deal, to call back the Shia militia helping the Al-Sadr militia in eradicating Sunnis in Iraq. Finally, use all force available to beat back most of the power structure of IS. It is difficult but doable. The author is the host of weekly talk show Current Affairs in the US