I'd share with you an interesting dilemma I face. Two commentators, both of whose opinions I value and often cite here on COTTonLINE, have stated somewhat opposite views of the threat posed by Iranian ambitions.
On the one hand, there is this column by Ralph Peters, military analyst for the New York Post. In it he argues Putin's motivation for the announced withdrawal from Syria is a realization that Russian efforts to prop up Assad mostly move forward the imperial ambitions of Iran, which include but are not limited to Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Peters believes Putin sees Iran as an evolving threat in his immediate neighborhood, and is dismayed by the lack of gratitude his Syrian incursion has generated.
On the other hand, David P. Goldman who blogs as Spengler and writes a column for Asia Times, sees Iran's imperial ambitions as demographically doomed by a less-than-replacement birth rate. I believe his view is that any expansionism on their part will necessarily be short-lived as they will soon have a shortage of military-aged young men. See an article in Al Monitor which describes the effect of Iran's population crash on funding retirement.
One could argue that the two views don't clash as the first is immediate whereas the second is longer-term, I'm not certain that workaround will fly. Putin is a chess player, accustomed to looking several moves ahead. If he believes Iran is a Russian problem going forward, he's likely correct.
However, knowing the mind of an autocratic (aren't they all?) Russian leader is notoriously difficult, and Putin is no exception. It is also possible Putin is trying to cut expenses in the face of low prices for Russia's oil exports.
