Over a month ago, the Prime Minister’s office asked me whether I’d vote to extend the RAF’s remit to Syria.

Exactly a year ago, I voted against it.

My view has not really changed, in that I can’t see how dropping bombs into a cauldron of hate will help.

Yes, it might kill a few members of ISIS, but it won’t solve the problem in the long term.

To do that, I told Mr Cameron’s private parliamentary secretary, we must talk to Putin and Assad, disagreeable though both men are.

Remember that Syria sits on Russia’s southern border and is home to her Mediterranean fleet, while Putin is no friend of militant Islam.

He’s also raised the stakes by substantially increasing his military presence in the region.
He says he aims to save the Syrian state and avoid the power vacuum seen in Libya.

It appears he’s willing to take on ISIS with, or without, us.

The danger is self-evident.

Israel and the US, both of which conduct raids over Syria, have promptly held ‘deconfliction’ talks with Moscow, aimed at preventing inadvertent clashes.

The West’s had its chance, but vacillated for four years.

The US spent $500 million on training ‘friendly’ Syrian rebels, only to see them surrender to an Al Qaeda affiliate.

Only a handful is still armed and fighting.

And, until very recently, the US-led coalition was pressing for removal of Assad, a no fly zone and a safe enclave in Northern Syria.

But, at the UN this week, there was an acceptance that Assad might be part of a temporary solution, despite butchering his own people.

Peace might have to come at a terrible price, but a stable, secular Syria is in everyone’s interest.