The Real Objectives of America’s War against IS

The justification that American Secretary of State John Kerry gave after the so-called Islamic State entered the Syrian city of Ain al-Arab* may be a shock to those who still imagine that the goal behind the West’s observable return to direct military involvement in the region is to save its countries and peoples from the terrorism of the so-called Islamic State and other groups.

Kerry hit the nail on the head when he confirmed that his country and its coalition has no strategy to prevent the fall of Ain al-Arab or any other city, which is what those watching the hysteria in the United States and the effort to build a coalition of more than 40 countries to fight a few of the Islamic State group’s tanks and armored vehicles and what a few thousand of its personnel had asserted. The strategic goal, from the point of view of the head of American diplomacy, we must ponder to understand. That is, the strategic goal is still concealed among all of the atrocities — the exterminations, the forced displacements and the systematic destruction of infrastructure — that are happening in Iraq and Syria. We are trying to identify the strategy so that next step — understanding it — can be taken.

Until the United States and its coalition can, through airstrikes in both Iraq and Syria, grasp the strategic goal (and despite the humanitarian disaster in Ain al-Arab), the original objectives of the coalition’s efforts, according to Kerry, are “the command-and-control centers, the infrastructure.”

With regard to Kerry’s jargon, there are a number of question marks dancing in front of those observing. Does he mean the command-and-control centers and infrastructure of the so-called Islamic State group? Or does he mean those of the Syrian state? Has the Islamic State group become so big that it has command-and-control centers and infrastructure? If it really does have these centers, can’t they be located on the ground? Why the delay in striking them? Why the inaction, and why are countries that have been exposed as supporters of the Islamic State group facilitating the movement of its personnel and providing it with logistical support to reach the region initially targeted? Does this not mean that the United States and its coalition harbor wicked intentions and plans? This confirms Kerry’s announcement that there is no strategy to prevent the fall of Ain al-Arab or any other city.

Thus, it has been confirmed for every observer that the destruction and terrorism now occurring, particularly in Syria, is just a new link in the chain that is the conspiracy against Syria, a chain that stretches from the outbreak of the crisis to now. After all of its plans fell apart, the coalition of conspiracy and aggression wants this chaos to create new rules of engagement with Syria and Syria’s allies, rules that work in its own favor. Consequently, the U.S. and the coalition look to have countries and terrorist groups that it classifies as the “moderate opposition” play roles on the ground. This seemed clear in the link between participating in military operations to topple the Syrian regime and the American administration’s meetings that, headed by Obama, aimed to find ways of supporting the so-called “moderate opposition” on the ground. Hence, as long as there is no strategy to prevent its fall, the opposite exists: a strategy to topple it.

*Editor’s note: Ain al-Arab is another name for the city of Kobani.