Longtime Rivals Look to Team Up to Confront ISIS
BAGHDAD
— As the United States and its allies look to fight the Islamic State
in Iraq and Syria, longtime adversaries with a common fear of the
radical movement are scrambling to see if they can cooperate to defeat
the rising threat.
The
jihadist group known as ISIS has so far thrived in part because its
enemies are also enemies of one another, a reality that has complicated
efforts to muster a strong response to its rampage. That factor has been
a crucial consideration in war planning in capitals as diverse as
Tehran and Washington, London and Damascus. But the potential threat has
also forced a re-examination of centuries old tensions between Sunnis
and Shiites, Kurds and Turks.
“Everyone
sees ISIS as a short-term nemesis,” said Vali Nasr, a former senior
adviser at the State Department who is dean of the School of Advanced
International Studies of Johns Hopkins University, adding that ISIS had
thrust the region’s traditional set of rivalries into a “momentary
pause.”
When
the United States military was preparing to leave Iraq in 2011, its
primary enemies were, for example, three Shiite militias, managed by
Iran’s spymaster, Qassim Suleimani, and armed with bombs traced to
factories in Iran. But recently, as United States warplanes bombed ISIS
fighters closing in on an Iraqi town, Amerli, Mr. Suleimani directed
three militias fighting the same enemy on the ground.
Iran
and the United States insist there was no coordination, but the
convergence of interests was a powerful symbol of just how much ISIS
has, at least for now, reordered the region.
ISIS
and its bloody march — mass killings, videotaped beheadings, ethnic
cleansing — is forcing nearly every nation with a stake to reconsider
relationships often shaped by competing agendas.
Analysts say that
following on the upheaval of the Arab Spring, the rise of ISIS has led
to perhaps the most turbulent moment for the Middle East since the split
centuries ago between Sunnis and Shiites.
“I
don’t think there’s been anything like this since the seventh century,”
said Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Egypt and
Israel who is now a professor at Princeton.
If
there is one upside to the tumult, it at least offers the slim prospect
of bringing greater stability to the fractured violent region by
finding common ground among competing geopolitical, religious and ethnic
differences.
But
that may just as likely prove wishful thinking, experts said. Mr. Nasr
suggested that Iran and the United States, for example, “have tactical
convergence,” in Iraq, but show little chance of a more durable
alliance.
“Iran
is not going to get in the way of the U.S. going after ISIS,” Mr. Nasr
said. “The U.S. is not going to get in the way of Iran going after
ISIS.”
The
Sunni power Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran, whose long rivalry has shaped
the sectarian divide of the Middle East and played out in proxy wars in
Syria and Iraq, also find themselves both opposed to ISIS. This has
raised hopes in the West of an opening in the fraught relationship
between the two countries that could help not just defeat ISIS in Iraq,
but perhaps help end sectarian skirmishes around the region, and resolve
the three-year-old civil war in Syria.
But
again Mr. Nasr said he saw only a reed of hope because, despite
opposing ISIS, neither has given any indication that it is ready to give
up a guiding principle of the two countries’ Middle East policies: that
each opposes the other.
“Right
now this is more hope in the West than a reality on the ground in the
Middle East,” said Mr. Nasr of a potential thaw in relations between
Saudi Arabia and Iran.
The
complex landscape of shifting alliances is particularly acute in Syria,
where ISIS rose in the vacuum of the civil war before sweeping across
Iraq. As President Obama weighs widening a military campaign against
ISIS by taking on the group inside Syria, he faces an even more complex
situation than in Iraq, where there are obvious allies to do the
fighting on the ground, including the Iraqi security forces, the Kurdish
pesh merga, and the Iranian-backed Shiite militias.
In
Syria, the United States has called for the ouster of President Bashar
al-Assad, while Iran has supported him. Russia, which has increasingly
angered the West with its military involvement in Ukraine, is also
another important ally of Mr. Assad. So Mr. Obama has to calculate how
to fight ISIS without appearing to aid Mr. Assad and the agenda of Iran
and Russia. If he helped the Syrian president, even indirectly, he would
violate his own stated objective and anger Turkey, an important
American partner in the region that has long opposed Mr. Assad.
“A
year ago we were discussing if we were going to bomb this guy or not,”
said Michael Stephens, an analyst in Qatar for the London-based Royal
United Services Institute. “Now we’re talking about helping him out.”
Turkey
has its own set of dilemmas. Early in the Syrian uprising Turkey bet
that Mr. Assad would go quickly, and supported rebel groups with weapons
and offered them the ability to go back and forth across its long
border with Syria. As the uprising evolved into a brutal civil war,
Turkey was sharply criticized for allowing ISIS to grow.
Now
ISIS has become a threat to Turkey, and holds nearly 50 Turkish
hostages captured when the militants overran the Turkish Consulate in
Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, in June.
So
while Turkey is eager to defeat the scourge of ISIS, it has been
restrained out of worry for the lives of the hostages. Publicly, Turkish
leaders have opposed the American airstrikes in Iraq.
“Privately,
it’s a very different story,” said Sinan Ulgen, a former Turkish
diplomat and chairman of the Center for Economic and Foreign Policy
Studies, a research organization in Istanbul. “Turkey wants a more
effective operation against ISIS.”
Turkey
also has another important interest. The Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or
P.K.K., has long fought an insurgency against Turkey, but after
militants threatened Iraq’s Kurdish region — which prompted the first
American airstrikes — its fighters swooped in to the fight in defense of
the Kurds. The P.K.K. has long been on the United States terrorist
list, but now there are calls for the group to be removed, which would
enhance the group’s legitimacy, and anger the Turks.
Broadly,
the rise of ISIS has sped up a process of reshaping the Middle East
that began with the Arab Spring uprisings over three years ago. Across
the region, the old order disintegrated.
“You
basically had an open field for these regional rivals to fight over,
and the fighting is not over,” Mr. Nasr said. “All of this put together
is a consequence of the Arab Spring.”
Separate
from ISIS, the Arab Spring brought to power the political Islamists in
many countries, sharpening a rivalry between Saudi Arabia, the United
Arab Emirates and Egypt, all opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood, and
Qatar and Turkey, supporters of the Brotherhood.
This
rivalry has played out in Libya, where the U.A.E., with Egyptian
support, has bombed Islamists. Meanwhile, Israel is “quite gleeful,” Mr.
Kurtzer said, to have the tacit support of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the
U.A.E. in its effort to crush Hamas, the militant group that is an
offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and is the authority in the Gaza
Strip.
The
new reality in the region is personified by the position Hakim
al-Zamili, an Iraqi politician and militia leader, finds himself in
these days. Mr. Zamili, a top official in the movement led by the Shiite
cleric Moktada al-Sadr, was once in an American detention facility,
accused of leading a Shiite death squad during Iraq’s sectarian civil
war in 2006 and 2007.
He was also on the ground in Amerli, along with Mr. Suleimani, the top Iranian operative.
“We
have had no problems with the U.S. since they withdrew from Iraq,” he
said. “I fought against them, as they were invaders. But today they are
not. We are now allied to fight ISIS together.”
Labels: Egypt, Iran, ISIS, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Terrorism, Turkey, United States
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home