Deadly terrorist attacks in Istanbul, Dhaka and Baghdad demonstrate the murderous reach of the Islamic State (IS) group in Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia. The longer the IS maintains its strongholds in Syria and Iraq, the longer its terrorist network will create such carnage. Yet the IS is not especially difficult to defeat. The problem is that none of the states involved in Iraq and Syria, including the US and its allies, has so far treated the IS as its primary foe. It is time they do.
The IS has a small fighting force, which the US puts at 20,000 to 25,000 in Iraq and Syria, and another 5,000 or so in Libya. Compared with the number of active military personnel in Syria (125,000), Iraq (271,500), Saudi Arabia (233,500), Turkey (510,600) or Iran (523,000), the IS is minuscule.
Despite US President Barack Obama’s pledge in September 2014 to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State, the US and its allies, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel (behind the scenes), have been focusing instead on toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Consider a recent candid statement by Israeli Major General Herzi Halevy (quoted to me by a journalist who attended the speech where Halevy made it): “Israel does not want to see the situation in Syria end with [the IS] defeated, the superpowers gone from the region and [Israel] left with a Hezbollah and Iran that have greater capabilities.”
Israel opposes the IS, but Israel’s greater concern is al-Assad’s Iranian backing. Al-Assad enables Iran to support two paramilitary foes of Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas. Israel therefore prioritizes the removal of al-Assad over the defeat of the IS.
For the US, steered by neoconservatives, the war in Syria is a continuation of the plan for global US hegemony launched by former US secretary of defense Richard Cheney and former undersecretary of defense for policy Paul Wolfowitz at the Cold War’s end.
In 1991, Wolfowitz told US General Wesley Clark: “But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region — in the Middle East — and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about five or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes — Syria, Iran, Iraq — before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.”
The multiple US wars in the Middle East — Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and others — have sought to remove the Soviet Union, and then Russia, from the scene and to give the US hegemonic sway. These efforts have failed miserably.
For Saudi Arabia, as for Israel, the main goal is to oust al-Assad to weaken Iran. Syria is part of the extensive proxy war between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia that plays out in the battlefields of Syria and Yemen and in bitter Shiite-Sunni confrontations in Bahrain and other divided countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia itself.
For Turkey, the overthrow of al-Assad would bolster its regional standing. Yet Turkey now faces three foes on its southern border: al-Assad, the IS and nationalist Kurds. The IS has so far taken a back seat to Turkey’s concerns about al-Assad and the Kurds. However, IS-directed terrorist attacks in Turkey might be changing that.
Russia and Iran, too, have pursued their own regional interests, including through proxy wars and support for paramilitary operations. Yet both have signaled their readiness to cooperate with the US to defeat the IS and perhaps to solve other problems as well. The US has so far spurned these offers, because of its focus on toppling al-Assad.
The US foreign-policy establishment blames Russian President Vladimir Putin for defending al-Assad, while Russia blames the US for trying to overthrow him. These complaints might seem symmetrical, but they are not. The attempt by the US and its allies to overthrow al-Assad violates the UN Charter, while Russia’s support of al-Assad is consistent with Syria’s right of self-defense under that charter. Yes, al-Assad is a despot, but the UN Charter does not give license to any country to choose which despots to depose.
The persistence of the IS underscores three strategic flaws in US foreign policy, along with a fatal tactical flaw.
First, the neoconservative quest for US hegemony through regime change is not only bloody-minded arrogance; it is classic imperial overreach. It has failed everywhere the US has tried it. Syria and Libya are the latest examples.
Second, the CIA has long armed and trained Sunni militants through covert operations funded by Saudi Arabia. In turn, these militants gave birth to the IS, which is a direct, if unanticipated, consequence of the policies pursued by the CIA and its Saudi partners.
Third, the US perception of Iran and Russia as implacable foes of the US is in many ways outdated and a self-fulfilling prophecy. A rapprochement with both countries is possible.
Fourth, on the tactical side, the US attempt to fight a two-front war against both al-Assad and the IS has failed. Whenever al-Assad has been weakened, Sunni extremists, including the IS and al-Nusra Front, have filled the vacuum.
Al-Assad and his Iraqi counterparts can defeat the IS if the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran provide air cover and logistical support. Yes, al-Assad would remain in power; yes, Russia would retain an ally in Syria; and yes, Iran would have influence there. Terrorist attacks would no doubt continue, perhaps even in the name of the IS for a while; but the group would be denied its base of operations in Syria and Iraq.
Such an outcome would not only end the IS on the ground in the Middle East; it could lay the groundwork for reducing regional tensions more generally. The US and Russia could begin to reverse their recent new cold war through shared efforts to stamp out extremist terrorism. (A pledge that NATO will not offer admission to Ukraine or escalate missile defenses in Eastern Europe would also help.)
There is more. A cooperative approach to defeating the IS would give Saudi Arabia and Turkey reason and opportunity to find a new modus vivendi with Iran.
Israel’s security could be enhanced by bringing Iran into a cooperative economic and geopolitical relationship with the West, in turn enhancing the chances for a long-overdue two-state settlement with Palestine.
The rise of the IS is a symptom of the shortcomings of current Western — particularly US — strategy. The West can defeat the IS. The question is whether the US will undertake the strategic reassessment needed to accomplish that end.
Jeffrey Sachs is a professor of sustainable development, professor of health policy and management, and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Chinese strongman Xi Jinping (習近平) hasn’t had a very good spring, either economically or politically. Not that long ago, he seemed to be riding high. The PRC economy had been on a long winning streak of more than six percent annual growth, catapulting the world’s most populous nation into the second-largest power, behind only the United States. Hundreds of millions had been brought out of poverty. Beijing’s military too had emerged as the most powerful in Asia, lagging only behind the US, the long-time leader on the global stage. One can attribute much of the recent downturn to the international economic
On Sept. 27, 2002, the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (East Timor) joined the UN to become its 191st member. Since then, two other nations have joined, Montenegro on June 28, 2006, and South Sudan on July 14, 2011. The combined total of the populations of these three nations is just more than half that of Taiwan’s 23.7 million people. East Timor has 1.3 million, Montenegro has slightly more than half a million and South Sudan has 10.9 million. They all are members of the UN, yet much more populous Taiwan is denied membership. Of the three, East Timor, as a Southeast Asian
Taiwan has for decades singlehandedly borne the brunt of a revanchist, ultra-nationalist China — until now. Ever since Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison had the temerity to call for a transparent, international investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, Beijing has been turning the screws on Canberra. This has included unleashing aggressive “wolf warrior” diplomats to intimidate Australian policymakers, enacting punitive tariffs on its exports, and threatening an embargo on Chinese tourists and students to the nation. A tense situation became more serious on June 19 after Morrison revealed that a “sophisticated state-based actor” — read: China — had launched a
Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) is to be Taiwan’s next representative to the US. Hsiao is well versed in international affairs and Taiwan-US relations. In her days as a student in the US, she was a member of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA) and served as chief executive of the Democratic Progressive Party’s US mission. She is familiar with a broad spectrum of Taiwanese affairs in the US. FAPA hopes that Hsiao, after taking up her new post, would continue to deepen and normalize relations between Taiwan and the US, and that she would try to get a free-trade agreement