The whole world condemned the gruesome killing of James Foley, the American reporter who was held captive by the Islamic State. The terrorist organisation posted a video on the Internet showing his murder on 19 August 2014, claiming that his fate was sealed by American aerial attacks on its positions in Iraq. If the video was intended to spread fear, it has had a completely different impact worldwide, one that is surely contrary to the expectations of the Islamic State. “The entire world is appalled by the brutal murder of Jim Foley by the terrorist group,” US President Barack Obama said on 20 August. He went on to say that the Islamic State “speaks for no religion … No just God would stand for what they did … Their ideology is bankrupt.” The US president said that the Islamic State “has no place in the 21st century.” He called on governments and people in the Middle East to reject “these kinds of nihilistic ideologies,” and to unite to “extract this cancer.” Two days later, on 22 August, US Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, held a press conference in Washington DC. Hagel insisted that the US was pursuing a “long-term strategy against ISIL [Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, more recently known as the Islamic State]” because it clearly posed a “long-term threat.” General Dempsey said that the Islamic State is an “organisation that has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated.” Hagel said the US is looking at all options to deal with the threat posed by the Islamic State. General Dempsey talked about military aspects of the looming confrontation with the Islamic State. The issue of whether or not air strikes should be limited to Iraq or expanded to Syria was raised. He was asked if it would be possible to bring about the Islamic State's defeat without addressing the organisation's presence in Syria. His answer to the question was “No,” and rightly so. From a strictly military point of view, if the US and its allies in the Middle East and the world want to annihilate this terrorist group they have no other option but to target its main bases in Syria. They cannot limit military operations against the Islamic State to air strikes or to Iraq only. According to General Dempsey, the optimum strategy would require a “variety of instruments, only one small part of which is air strikes … It requires the application of all the tools of national power — diplomatic, economic, information, military.” The question, in this respect, is whether the US will shoulder these responsibilities alone. The answer is negative. The US administration has been opposed to getting involved in large-scale military operations in the Middle East since the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq at the end of December 2011. And while the heinous murder of the American reporter Foley calls for a forceful military response on the part of the United States, President Obama is still treading a very fine line. He wants to defeat the forces of the Islamic State but not by committing boots on the ground. That will be the responsibility of the Iraqis: mainly, the Iraqi army and Kurdish forces combined. But before getting engaged in a long fight against the terrorists wreaking havoc across Iraq and Syria, the Iraqis must form an inclusive government that represents all political forces in Iraq, and is truly a government of national consensus. This is a sine qua non of any sustained military intervention in Iraq to defeat the Islamic State. What to do about the necessary military operations in Syria is a different matter. In an article published on 23 August 2014, The New York Times quoted officials in the US administration about a debate in Washington DC concerning a “more robust intervention in Syria, including possible American strikes.” One day earlier, Benjamin Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, speaking to reporters at Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, said that American officials are “actively considering what is going to be necessary to deal with that threat, and we are not going to be restricted by borders.” In other words, we should brace ourselves for major changes in the regional landscape of the Middle East. One of the basic questions that must be discussed by the US administration and its allies is the role of the Syrian government in any future military operations on Syrian soil. In the best-case scenario, these operations will be carried out following a UN Security Council resolution that authorises the use of force, both in Iraq and Syria, to defeat the Islamic State. If the resolution is to pass unanimously, the Syrian government must be consulted and approve such operations on its territory. Otherwise, the Americans and their allies will be violating the Charter of the United Nations by conducting military operations within Syria without the prior approval of its government. Needless to say, among the options that American officials are discussing, high on the list is arming what the west and its allies against the Syrian government have always referred to as moderate groups fighting the Syrian army, including the Kurds of Syria. Similarly, there is talk of sending Special Forces to pursue Islamic State terrorists within Syria. In order to succeed, these options should be cleared, directly or indirectly, with the Syrian army. In the absence of such coordination — and I am not talking here of cooperation — I am afraid the operations could get stuck and face obstacles that would reduce their chances of success in a short period of time, and with the least number of losses in terms of lives. Another precondition is prior consultation with Russia, Iran and China. Any operations in Syria should not be seen as aiming, by any means, to overthrow the regime in Damascus, even indirectly. The Russians and the Chinese do not want a repeat of the Libyan scenario of 2011, when NATO intervened militarily on the side of the rebels and contributed to the downfall of the former Libyan regime. The success of any military response to bring down the Islamic State calls for an Arab coalition to support and share responsibilities. Any Arab role would, understandably, be discreet. Some Arab governments will do their best not to be seen as siding with the west against fellow Muslims, particularly given the fact that western powers have not moved to halt Israeli aggression against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Their contribution should be more in the field of intelligence and withholding funding for the Islamic State. But the main responsibility rests with the Iraqis themselves, and on the willingness of leading Arab powers to coordinate with the Iranians to bring down ISIL in both Iraq and Syria. For some Arab powers that would be anathema, but there is no other way. In fact, foreign ministers of Arab governments that are part of the so-called Friends of Syria group met in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on 24 August. The group, many would say, has contributed to the rise of the “nihilistic ideology” that President Obama spoke of after the gruesome murder of Foley. They were meeting to discuss how to coordinate their efforts to deal with the existential threat that the Islamic State poses to their territorial integrity, security and stability. According to officials, the meeting discussed the need to find a political solution to the Syrian crisis. If the solution they envision is to be based on their interpretation of the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 — that is, the departure of President Bashar Al-Assad from power — then their meeting will be a non-starter as far as dealing forcefully with the Islamic State is concerned. The writer is former assistant to the foreign minister.
