US President Barack Obama met with the National Security Council on 28 August to discuss the situation in Iraq and how best to confront, and ultimately defeat, the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS). The meeting reviewed American efforts to support to Iraq in its fight against ISIS and the “comprehensive strategy” of the US government to meet the ISIS threat to both Iraq and Syria, according to a transcript released by the White House. Earlier on the same day, President Obama called for an international coalition to defeat ISIS. In his statement, made at the White House, Obama outlined his position on the best defence against ISIS and threats against Iraq's territorial integrity. The American president spoke about working on a “broader, comprehensive strategy to protect our people and support our partners who are taking the fight to ISIS.” He went on to say that any “successful strategy ... needs strong regional partners.” President Obama said he had asked John Kerry, the US secretary of state, to travel to the Middle East “to continue to build the coalition that is needed to meet this threat (ISIS).” He added, “Rooting out a cancer like ISIS will not be quick or easy.” The US president pointed out that he asked Chuck Hagel, the US secretary of defence, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to work on a range of military options to deal with ISIS. It is understood that the military options will not be limited to Iraq's territory, but will also include Syria. According to General Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, there is no way to defeat ISIS without going after it in Syria, where it is based. On 29 August The New York Times published an op-ed by Secretary of State Kerry in which he wrote that he would head to the Middle East with Defence Secretary Hagel next week after attending a NATO ministerial meeting in Wales, Great Britain. He referred to what he termed a “united response” to be led by the United States, and the “broadest possible coalition of nations” to stop the “spread of the cancer of ISIS.” Interesting to note that Secretary Kerry called his Egyptian counterpart last week to say that the US government has decided to deliver the 10 Apache gunships it withheld from the Egyptian army as part of measures taken by Washington in the wake of the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood government on 3 July 2013. The decision coincides with the tour that Kerry and Hagel will make in the region in the coming days. It is legitimate to ask who will be part of this grand coalition. The second question relates to the overall mission, strategically and militarily, of such a coalition. In other words, is ISIS the enemy, or does the designation include all terrorist groups operating in Syria to overthrow the Damascus regime? Is it feasible to single out ISIS and leave behind groups that share its beliefs? UN Security Council Resolution 1270, adopted unanimously in the middle of last month, targeted both ISIS and Al-Nusra Front, an Al-Qaeda affiliate that last week kidnapped 43 peacekeepers on the Golan Heights in Syria. Another important question concerns the timeframe of the military operations that this coalition would undertake to defeat ISIS. Of course, financial considerations are no less important. According to the Pentagon, the cost of US military operations in support of the Iraqi and Kurdish war effort (from 8 August, the day operations began in Iraq, to 28 August) has surpassed $500 million. This raises the question of how costs will be shared. In this context, let me refer to the speech of the Custodian of the Holy Shrines, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, on 30 August, in which he called on the international community — and in particular, western nations — to work together to destroy ISIS. He warned the latter that they could be next on the list of targets of ISIS, and in a very short period of time. One day earlier, the British government, in an unexpected move, increased the UK's terror threat alert level to one step below the highest level. These questions will surely be discussed during talks between the two high-ranking US officials and their counterparts in the Middle East. Aside from those questions, there are serious obstacles to implementing the US concept of creating a grand coalition to defeat ISIS. The first is the role, whether covert or openly, of the Syrian government. I would argue that it would be farfetched to believe that this coalition of willing nations in the Middle East can successfully carry out a military mission without help from Damascus. The second obstacle is whether Turkey could, for instance, be a member in the same coalition with Egypt. And what would be the role of NATO in this coalition? These are very serious issues, at least from an Egyptian point of view. The upcoming mission of Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel to the Middle East will be no picnic. It will be interesting to hear the American answers to these questions.
