ISIS Advance: ‘America Will Attack ISIS with Drones’

The United States has dispatched 275 troops to Iraq. What can it achieve there?

According to official statements, it’s about protecting American citizens and facilities. The number of soldiers is so small that one may assume that nothing more is actually intended.

This is not the vanguard of a larger, broader offensive about which it is currently keeping quiet?

I don’t think that such a decision has yet been made. The American government has consistently urged Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki to change his politics. That will require lengthy negotiations. Without these changes, military measures are also largely useless. Obama knows that.

How long can the United States stay out of the conflict militarily?

I assume that the Americans will, sooner or later, intervene in Syria, Iraq or even both countries. The U.S. has made clear in the past that it would combat terrorists directly whenever it sees America threatened. The means for this are also clear: Obama’s administration prefers the CIA and war by drones. I assume that in the not-too-distant future, but perhaps not this year, the Americans will attack ISIS from the air.

The United Nations warns of a wildfire in the Middle East. Is that likely?

I see no danger of an interstate conflict. Most states in the region have serious internal problems. Next to Iraq and Syria, that applies to their neighbors Lebanon and Jordan, but also to Iran. Instead, I see the danger of a creeping destabilization in large parts of Iraq and Syria and an attempt to grab parts of neighboring states. ISIS will not succeed at establishing an Islamic state. For that, the group is too weak and the counterforces are too strong. But persistent instability in the entire region could be the result.

Did the Americans leave Iraq too soon, and are they thus complicit in creating the current predicament?

The Americans’ most significant mistake was that they invaded Iraq in the first place. Everything that Obama subsequently attempted could only be damage control. Militarily speaking, the American troops were withdrawn too early. But this raises the question of the terms on which they should have remained. There was no status of forces agreement because the Maliki government refused the Americans permission to leave a few units behind in Iraq. The responsibility there too falls at the feet of the Maliki government, and one cannot blame it on Obama.

The Iranians make advances toward the West and propose “cooperation” — how could this look concretely?

I hope that it doesn’t come to that. The Iranians are complicit in the current plight. Both Maliki and the Syrian strongman Assad are allies of Tehran. Both act in accordance with Iranian goals. If the Iranians now volunteer to be part of the solution, that is complete rubbish. They have tolerated their ally Assad as he butchered well over 100,000 people. That was an important reason for the strengthening of ISIS. To work together with Tehran now would reinforce the underlying problems even more.

But what impacts ISIS corresponds with the interests of the West and the Iranians in repelling the rebels and restoring stability.

Only on cursory examination. The fear of ISIS should not tempt us to give simple answers to difficult political questions, like the Iranians and the Assad regime have wanted to make palatable to us for almost three years. I maintain: Short-term cooperation would exacerbate the problem over the long term. One may talk with the Iranians, but the solutions for the conflict in Iraq and in Syria require a good deal more than just the military fight against ISIS.

Does it now appear to have been a mistake to stand in Syria on the side of the insurgence against Assad, and thereby undermine the stability of the state?

The biggest mistake lay in making no decision whatsoever. The Americans have only stood rhetorically on the side of the insurgency.

They’ve also supplied weapons.

Yes, but weapons in an amount and a quality that would not influence the balance of power on the ground. It was already clear in 2011 that the Assad regime would survive. A clear strategic decision should have been made then, but it failed to materialize. My impression is that the Americans no longer know what their goal actually is. They can also still not decide which is more important to them: the fight against ISIS or Assad’s overthrow. I hold both are necessary if the situation is to improve.

In Spain the police have just broken up an ISIS cell. And in Berlin a French-Syrian fighter was intercepted as he tried to enter Germany. How great is the danger that ISIS brings its campaign of terror to Europe?

Very great. At present ISIS has at least a few hundred members that come from Europe. The first have already returned from the combat zones. One must assume that all of them are highly radicalized.

Stefan Tomik conducted the interview.