Regional and international powers are working to create a coalition to combat terrorism, specifically the Islamic State (IS), as set out by UN Security Council Resolution 2170. The Syrian and Iranian regimes are moving in this direction, and Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are working to find a way to include Syria. Momentum for the coalition is also building in Europe where British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Francois Hollande and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius have all spoken in strong terms about the threat that IS poses. Yet the US position remains ambiguous and confused. In an article in the UK daily The Daily Telegraph, Cameron said that western nations are even prepared to cooperate with Iran in the fight against IS. “There is a need for Britain to work with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt and Turkey and even with Iran in order to confront the danger of this extremist organisation,” he wrote. Echoing this, Fabius expressed his hope that all the countries of the region, including Iran, will act together against IS. French President Hollande said that his country proposes to hold a conference on security in Iraq and the fight against IS. The international situation is “more dangerous than it has been since 2001,” he said, and it requires a “comprehensive strategy” to address it. Hollande was reiterating the terms used by US President Barack Obama when the latter gave the command for aerial strikes against IS positions in northern Iraq. Unfortunately, what all these statements have in common is that they do not appear to be sufficiently serious. They reflect an awareness of the impossibility of forming a coalition that brings together many of the regional parties they mention. It would take something of a miracle to bring Saudi Arabia and Egypt together with Qatar, for example, or Turkey with Iran. Turkey, which supports IS with logistics, training and arms, has much to gain from the current situation. It benefits from the EU resolutions that allow terrorist organisations to sell Syrian oil from the petroleum fields in the areas they control, such as Deir Al-Zor, on the grounds that the revenues support the Syrian opposition. Turkish markets are the major outlet for this oil, which Turkey buys for US$10 a barrel. The oil is then sold on for a substantial profit, the world price now being in the region of $100 a barrel. In addition, following the failure of the Turkish strategy on Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which was centred on an alliance with Muslim Brotherhood organisations, Ankara is now promoting an alliance with extremist organisations such as IS and the Al-Nusra Front, believing this will strengthen its position in the region. Turkey may believe that it has little to fear from the fallout from the partition of Iraq or Syria and the emergence of a caliphate state in Mosul, as it may see itself as the only potential gateway for that state to the rest of the world. At the same time, it is difficult to picture Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE cooperating with Iran in the framework of a strategy to combat terrorism before a solution is reached to the Syrian crisis and, above all, to the future of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. A solution to these questions is essential as there can be no hope of defeating IS in Syria without destroying its support bases, and this will be impossible without working directly with the Syrian regime.
THE SYRIAN OBSTACLE: The subject of Iran and Syria leads to the Russian role, which then leads to that of the US and the ambiguity in Washington. Statements made by Obama, the actual practices of the US and the statements of Secretary of State John Kerry have been notable for their contradictions. At a press conference in August, Obama admitted that his country had no strategy as of yet for confronting the Islamic State (IS). But he said that he was working on a military plan to overcome the problem and stressed that this would be neither quick nor easy. He also said that Washington would not be forced to choose between siding with Al-Assad or IS. Rather, the US “will continue to support the moderate opposition because there has to be an alternative that transcends Al-Assad and IS.” Yet, even as he said this Washington was handing military intelligence and the coordinates of IS forces in northern Syria to Syrian authorities via Russia and/or Iran. Syrian forces have benefited greatly from this intelligence, since it has helped deliver precise and debilitating strikes against ISIS positions. Moreover, Damascus has not only benefited militarily from such back channels, but it has also used them politically to encourage the creation of a regional-international coalition against IS on Syria's terms. The Syrian regime has pushed to be recognised as an active partner in this coalition, with Russia being its diplomatic partner so that it will not be dominated by the US. Following Syrian air strikes against IS bases in northern Syria, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Muallem held a press conference at which he voiced his country's readiness to cooperate regionally and internationally in the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2170, which calls for international action against IS. This was a bid to use recent political and security developments to end the Syrian regime's isolation and rehabilitate it politically. The minister stressed that his government's cooperation would be conditional on “respect for Syrian sovereignty” and on a central position for his government in the international coalition. He also indicated that Damascus is prepared to host international forces fighting IS. “Air strikes are not sufficient, and the IS cannot be fought from long distance,” he said. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says his country supports Washington's decision to target IS in Iraq and Syria. But he also says that western governments will have to work with Syrian authorities to halt those who are arming the terrorist organisation. “The Americans and Europeans have begun to admit the truth, which they have recognised privately, which is that the primary threat to the region and to western interests is not the Al-Assad regime but the possibility that terrorists will seize control in Syria and other countries in the region,” Lavrov said. Iran supports this position but the policy of “necessity knows no law”, which the US applied when working with Tehran to resolve the recent governmental crisis in Iraq, may be difficult to extend to possible US-Syrian agreements to end the IS threat. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Kerry, in a recent New York Times article, called for a broad international coalition to fight IS in Syria and northern Iraq. Previously, US rhetoric had focused on the need to fight IS in Iraq, with no mention of Syria, from which IS forces had nevertheless swept into the country. Kerry also stressed that the envisioned coalition would be US-led and that Obama was preparing a plan to defeat IS that would be unveiled at a UN Security Council meeting in September. Kerry's remarks have differed from those made by Obama, but they have been just as vague as the statements made by European officials who have taken pains to avoid naming which parties the coalition would be open to in order to circumvent major sticking points, such as the position of Syria, the conflicting interests of regional parties and the ambiguity of Washington's intentions.
NEW REGIONAL REALITY: The international community and the US and Europe in particular have been wavering over two questions. The first is whether to launch a full-scale offensive against IS forces in the framework of an international coalition, along the lines of the one formed in 1990-1991 to liberate Kuwait, or whether to keep the offensive restricted to the current framework of US air strikes. The second is whether to engage seriously with the Syrian regime in a coordinated drive against IS and other terrorist organisations, for fear that this could lead to recognition of the legitimacy of the Al-Assad regime. One solution could be “sub-contracting” an American military offensive against IS, or engaging private firms to supply security advisors to Iraq and Syria. According to a report on Sky News, the US Defence Department is now preparing to recruit security personnel and advisors. “It appears that Obama has ruled out sending ground forces into Iraq again. But in view of the growing threat of the ISIS, it seems that the Pentagon is looking for a way to send in forces by the back door,” the television channel said. The Europeans are also hesitating, in spite of their conviction that it will be next to impossible to stop the IS threat without combatting its presence in Syria. Hostility towards the Al-Assad regime and a determination to overthrow it continues to dominate EU foreign policy attitudes, shaped to a large extent by the French and the British. EU animosity towards IS has done nothing to alter its attitude toward the Al-Assad regime. The international environment is thus constrained by the lack of a solution to the problem of dealing with the Syrian regime. But the regional environment may offer solutions: there is a growing conviction among Arab and regional parties of the need to swim against the current and that necessity should override taboos. This trend began among the Gulf countries and has spread to include Iran. It may soon involve other players, including Egypt and Russia. There were moves in this direction at the 132nd session of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Foreign Ministers Council on 30 August, when participants resolved to freeze the disputes between Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain, on the one hand, and Qatar on the other. It was agreed that “it will require time” to meet the agreed-upon commitments of the member nations for political coordination. The return of ambassadors from Riyadh, the UAE and Bahrain to Doha was put on hold, and the disputes between these three nations and Qatar were left unresolved. Nevertheless, the six GCC countries now realise that the greatest threat to the Gulf is terrorist groups and organisations. The question of Qatari support for the Muslim Brotherhood is no longer as pressing, “now that the danger of Qatari support for the Muslim Brothers has receded before the imperative of confronting takfiri terrorist organisations and unifying the Gulf position against them,” an observer noted. This development was preceded by other intensive efforts, including the visit of a high-level Saudi delegation, including the ministers of interior and foreign affairs and the chief of Saudi intelligence, to Doha on 27 August. The diplomatic mission was described as “the last chance” that Riyadh would give to Qatar “to sing among the flock rather than outside it,” or, in other words, to work within the GCC system. Saudi Arabia announced on Tuesday that it will host a conference on how to combat the threat posed by the IS, was scheduled to take place today. The Saudis have been in the forefront of the war against terrorism in the region. There has also been progress in Iranian-Saudi relations, where the mounting terrorist threat has forced Riyadh and Tehran to act quickly to improve coordination between them. Tehran responded coolly to an invitation from the Saudi foreign minister to attend a conference of the foreign ministers of the Islamic Cooperation Organisation. But later, Tehran sent its deputy foreign minister, Hussein Amer Abdul Lahyan, to Saudi Arabia to meet Prince Saud Al-Faisal. This visit was apparently successful as Iranian Foreign Minister Mohamed Javad Zarif later said that he was ready to visit Saudi Arabia. In a press conference held with his Finnish counterpart, Zarif said, “Iran seeks to establish good relations with its neighbours. Saudi Arabia is among our most important neighbours. It is an important country in the Islamic world, and it plays a major role and has extensive influence.” He described the talks between his deputy and the Saudi foreign minister as being “positive and forward-looking.” He added, “We hope these talks will lay the groundwork for bilateral cooperation.” Iran and Saudi Arabia have mutual interests and face common dangers, Zarif said, citing extremism, violence and terrorism as the gravest dangers facing the Islamic world. They threaten the interests of all the countries in the region, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, he said, adding, “We have to confront these dangers as a single force.” While the message seems clear, it should be kept in mind that after his visit to Riyadh, the Iranian deputy foreign minister headed straight to Damascus and only then did Zarif issue his statement. The question remains, therefore, as to whether there will be a Saudi-Iranian rapprochement and whether such a rapprochement will lead to a solution to the Syrian dilemma. This in turn leads to the question of Egypt's role and an initiative from Cairo that many believe will surmount the Syrian problem and provide a satisfactory solution for all parties.
