An Alliance with No Chances

As Islamic State militants gain control over more territories, American help becomes vital for regional players who otherwise would not need the United States so much. It seems that the disproportionate amount of attention Obama’s anti-Islamic State group speech received from the mass media has more to do with the manner of the address rather than its substance.

From the speechwriters’ point of view, Obama delivered a more than successful speech. It can rightfully take its place among the compilations of addresses such as those by Roosevelt, Churchill and Abraham Lincoln. If wars were won in front of a microphone, no doubt the Islamists would have been defeated there and then.

Obama is good at giving public speeches. From this point of view, he is an ideal president: always well-dressed, with an appropriate facial expression and the tone of his voice befitting the situation. However, this speech is not as important to Obama himself, since he is a re-elected president, as it is to his party: The Democrats have congressional elections ahead of them.

Missing the Point

Unfortunately, the sad truth about declaring war is that it doesn’t stop [war] but, rather, makes it obvious. In this particular case, a war against the U.S. has been declared. Slowly and rather irrationally, the country responds to the open challenge, as it tries to combine a fight with a real and quite dangerous enemy with old geopolitical speculations like overthrowing President Bashar Assad. That being said, the States keep a close relationship with the Islamic militants’ main sponsors — Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Obviously, these countries are involved in a bitter fight over world influence. In this confrontation, Qatar wins in Iraq and Syria loses in Egypt for now; in Lebanon and Yemen the situation is a stalemate; in Afghanistan, Riyadh puts pressure on Doha; and in Algeria Doha beats Riyadh.

However, the question here is not what kind of terrorist is worse for the United States. With amazing tenacity, it has been playing the same game of chess since the 80’s conflict in Afghanistan — toying with political Islam.

Judging by the American president’s intention to “support Syrian opposition,” he is not going to collaborate with Damascus in his fight against the Islamic State group, though Damascus air forces strike serious blows to the Islamic State group. Moreover, the only opposition — which fights simultaneously against Assad and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s militants — is pro-Saudi Jabhat al-Nusra (i.e. al-Qaida). Syria doesn’t have a secular, mission-capable opposition.

The Free Syrian Army has long since been disbanded because its Western sponsors, in order to save their funds, tried to get away with [just establishing] training camps and foreign policy support, which included an international media campaign.

Some of the most combat-effective parts of the Free Syrian Army have joined the Islamists. Fortunately enough, unlike the Americans, both Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been generously supporting units under their control. This army no longer has a unified command or any serious forces; even the National Intelligence Organization of Turkey admits it. However, supporting secular opposition is exactly what President Obama talks about.

And here we come to the most disappointing conclusions.

Either America’s policymakers lie openly, making bets on one kind of Islamist over the other (even today the outcome of this for the security of the United States, let alone the region, is clear), or President Obama is being misled. Or, what’s worse, he lives in an imaginary world that exists only in his own mind and in the minds of his closest advisers. In other words, the incompetence of military-political leaders of the richest and most powerful country in the world has reached a limit.

It should be pointed out that Turkey — which, with its geopolitical location and the second largest army in NATO, could have played a key role in defeating the Islamic State group — will not participate in an Obama-led military campaign. This can mean anything.

It will not join any coalition with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, both of which are fighting against the Muslim Brotherhood — a movement politically close to the Turkish Justice and Development Party. It doesn’t matter what enemy the coalition will choose to fight against.

At the very least, this decision demonstrates that the Islamic State group can consider the area its safe base. Turkey is becoming a neutral state for al-Baghdadi, though an unfriendly one. There is no need for the Islamic State group to fear the Turkish army considering these facts: Turkish militants are fighting with the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds, who are traditionally hostile to Ankara and the important role of the illegal oil trade with Turkey — and, by the way, with Jordan — with prices up to 2-4 times lower than the market price.

Ankara guaranteed to the anti-Islamic coalition that it is ready to stop the Islamic State group’s oil supply through Iraqi Kurdistan. It also promised to stop and detain the foreign jihadi on its territory, first with those moving from Western countries to Syria and Iraq.

The question is to what extend these promises can be kept. For now, it is Turkey that is a main transit country for the Islamic State group’s oil deliveries to the world market and a transit route for European Islamists, up to 5,000 of whom have joined al-Baghdadi’s ranks.

It is possible that the previously described neutrality is the result of the same policy Turkey demonstrated 10 years ago when it refused Washington the use of its territory and airfields for airstrikes against Saddam Hussein’s army.

This, as well as a deliberately neutral position in 2008 during the Russian-Georgian crisis and in 2014 during the situation in Ukraine, means that this country has completely left the U.S. orbit of influence, keeping only the formal relationship within NATO.

The personal relationship between Presidents Obama and Erdogan is extremely tense, which can leave its mark on Turkey’s lukewarm attitude toward any coalition organized by Washington with the American leader in charge.

Any form of White House dominance is unacceptable for the Turkish president. The only kind of leadership Recep Tayyip Erdogan does accept is his own leadership — a fact he has demonstrated many times in his domestic as well as foreign policy.

Jeopardy

The Syrian government, along with Iran and certainly Israel, is excluded from the coalition. At the same time, Assad’s air forces successfully fight against the Islamic State group on his territory, although Damascus loses in the ground operations: Capture of the Tabqa Air Base demonstrates the Islamic State group’s clear lead. The base was captured despite violent resistance from the Syrian army. Over a hundred suicide bombers were used during the operation.

At the same time, Jabhat al-Nusra’s increase in number of units by using “Obama’s plan” poses a threat to Damascus as serious as the war with the Islamic State group. Besides, it is possible that the American aviation [systems] in Syria is used not against the Islamists but against Bashar Assad’s army.

Iran will not join any regional alliances that have the U.S. and Saudi Arabia as members, even more so now that weakening of the Islamic State group is supposedly possible because of the strengthening of its enemies from pro-Saudi Salafist factions and the Kurds. Though their relationships are far from perfect, the history of their hostility doesn’t date as far back as that with Ankara.

Consequently, the Iranian army and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will limit their operations to defending Najaf, Karbala and Samarra — home to Shiite relics, with control of the cross-border region and support to the mostly Shiite Iraqi army.

From the point of view of the Iranian government, the question that remains open is to what extent the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to get involved in the civil war, and take a side against the Islamic State group. It is being discussed. If necessary, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is ready to organize a defense of Baghdad. At the same time, Iran cannot get involved in a full-scale military action on Iraqi territory. This way, the Islamic State group will turn the war into one of national liberation and turn Iraqi Shiites into the fifth column. Or even worse — unleash a religious war between Shiites and Sunnis, which can spread throughout the region.

Most likely, Iran will maintain an exchange of information with the U.S. about the situation in Iraqi Kurdistan; however, it is early to talk about normalization of relations between the two countries. Lobbying Arab monarchies and Israel, as well as the resistance of Congress, makes it difficult for President Obama to lift the sanctions and use Iranian oil to replace Russian oil and gas in European markets as fast as he would like to.

On the contrary, the unresolved nuclear problem of the Islamic Republic of Iran provokes him to talk purposefully tough, which is negatively perceived in Tehran.

Jerusalem announced that Israel Defense Forces will support the Kingdom of Jordan in case of a serious threat from the Islamic State group. At the same time, the Israelis are preparing to face the Islamists’ attack in the Golan Heights. The possibility of conflict with Hezbollah further complicates the situation; the organization is fighting against the Salafist units in Syria and Lebanon, simultaneously increasing its military capacity in the border region with Israel. A war with Hezbollah isn’t something Israel’s policymakers plan for; however, it can begin as suddenly as Operation Pillar of Defense did in Gaza.

It is up to foreign players whether Israel will be able to focus on Salafist factions or, as before, on the confrontation with Hezbollah and Hamas. In the first case, it is up to Iran; in the second scenario — up to Qatar and possibly Turkey, which supports Hamas.

The emergence of a new regional threat (the Islamic State group) doesn’t stop previous conflicts or “domestic preparations” of the countries seeking regional hegemony, using radical Arab groups against Israel for proxy wars.

The relationship of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with U.S. President Barack Obama is as tense as their relationship with the Turkish leader. An open policy of intimidation from the White House during a recent confrontation with Hamas makes Israel question the loyalty of the United States in a crisis situation. However, Washington will get all the support it needs from Jerusalem in its fight against the Islamic State group.

The reality of the struggle against the Islamic State group is that there are no chances of defeating al-Baghdadi’s units without a full-scale ground operation. Air forces and drones can stop militants’ attacks in separate regions and support the Kurdish Peshmerga and the Iraqi army, who can successfully operate only on their own territories.

Arabian armies — be it the armed forces of Jordan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia — will not fight in Iraq; the Saudis and the Jordanians will only deal with protecting their own borders, and the Egyptians will support Saudi Arabia, whose troops are the weakest link in the coalition.

Riyadh is concerned not so much with fighting the Islamic State group but with buying over sheikhs of the Sunni tribes of the border region supporting al-Baghdadi; former Secretary General of the National Security Council Bandar bin Sultan is entrusted with the task.

No one has succeeded at splitting the Islamic State group yet; neither tribes nor former Baathists are ready to give up what they have achieved at the height of their success. The brute force that the Islamic State group uses to put down protests — some from local tribes, among others — also strengthens its presence. Moreover, elimination and displacement of Shiites, Christians, Yazidis and secular Sunnis while attracting tens of thousands of settlers from arid regions to these cleaned-up territories strengthens the power monopoly of radicals in Mesopotamia; the midstream of the Tigris and Euphrates is under their full control.

In the Middle East, having control over the water supply has always equaled power. The Islamic State group uses this to the fullest extent, let alone the fact that the settlers — once they get hold of the property of those eliminated and displaced — become supportive of al-Baghdadi and his regime.

As for Egypt, its armed forces are busy with the struggle against underground Islamist forces in the inner provinces of their country. Among the serious problems of President el-Sissi and his army is the infiltration of the Islamist militants across the Libyan and Sudanese borders and military operations in Sinai, which includes not only the central mountain regions of the peninsula but the Gaza border as well.

It’s not that Hamas can cause any serious damage to the army of the Arab Republic of Egypt. However, the Security Department is concerned about the activity of the terrorist groups. Egypt has no other choice but to support Saudi Arabia because its financial assistance is vital for Cairo, given the unfolding financial crisis and the approaching water crisis in 2017. Moreover, after overthrowing the Muslim Brotherhood regime and president Morsi, Turkey and Qatar declared a cold war on the Arab Republic of Egypt, against which they fight aggressively and consistently. The Egyptian economy will collapse without assistance from Riyadh, and re-equipment of the army will be impossible.

In the current situation, the alliance is the main guarantee of safety for the Saudi monarchy, since it no longer relies on the United States. While they guarantee the inviolability of kingdom borders, the Egyptian task force is ready to conduct operations only on its own territory or in the small frontier zone and border region. I will repeat: The Egyptians will not and cannot delve into the inner regions and provinces of Iraq, which is necessary to defeat the Islamic State group. A ground operation requires consolidation of forces that outnumber the enemy at least three times. In both wars against Saddam Hussein, the Americans had a five-fold advantage, which is not the case with Obama’s [current] coalition.

On al-Baghdadi’s Side

It is estimated that the Islamic State group has 15,000-20,000 foreign recruits. Most of them will become the basis of jihad in their home countries — from the countries of the European Union to the Arab World, to Central and South Asia.

An influx of professionals — engineers (first of all, oilfield experts), doctors and other college-educated specialists called in by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to the territory under his control — strengthens his regime and makes it possible for the Islamic State group to acquire chemical and biological weapons in the near future.

The Islamic State group’s multibillion-dollar holdings has turned the organization into a leader of Green International and lets it recruit not only jihad infantry in Yemen, Morocco and other countries of the Islamic world, but also support radical factions trying to create emirates similar to the Islamic State group. First of all, it concerns Africa — the Maghreb as well as the countries of the Sahara and Sahel — although the similar spread of jihad to Central and South Asia is only a matter of time.

The successes of Boko Haram in the Borno state in Nigeria, al-Shabab in Somalia and Kenya, al-Qaida in the countries of the Islamic Maghreb and the Unity and Jihad Movement of Western Africa in Mali, Niger and Algeria is an extremely dangerous trend.

The geography of the Islamists’ activity coincides with their true capabilities, which have greatly increased since the beginning of the Arab Spring, and especially after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya and the beginning of the Syrian civil war.

The problem with the fight against the Islamic State group is that the U.S. and other members of the coalition do not want to use the necessary methods, just as they do not want to deal with the cost of conducting a war on this scale.

Someone is ready to substitute the Islamic State group with their own radicals and buy over al-Baghdadi’s militants to try and use them to their own advantage. Some members of the coalition only want to protect their borders. And some just put up a show.

The latter concerns its Western members — especially the U.S. The current American president cannot stay uninvolved in the face of mass killing of civilians and the genocide of minorities, or the public executions of Western citizens. On the other hand, he personally sympathizes with the Islamists, as long as they don’t attack the United States, though he cannot openly demonstrate it.

Also, Obama is not ready to give up overthrowing Bashar Assad. And finally, for his idée fixe — his conflict with Russia, which includes European oil markets, [means that] he needs Qatar and Iran’s gas resources, Saudi Arabia’s oil and Turkey as a transit country.

Finally, Iran, with its nuclear program, is an annoying factor for Congress and Obama cannot ignore that.

As Islamic State group militants gain control over more territories, American help becomes vital for regional players, who otherwise would not need the United States so much. In this situation, no theoretically correct steps can lead to victory over the Islamic State group. Among other reasons, the United States is not interested in it — regardless of Obama’s statements. As for those destroyed by the Islamic State group, including American citizens — it is not the first genocide of the last century that the U.S. happened to “not notice.”

The Obama administration has religiously given assurances that the aggressor will be punished, though localized air strikes are not dangerous for the Islamic State group, and al-Baghdadi, with all his militants, is not a threat to the United States. The Obama administration is obviously sure of it.