America's Policy Mistakes Give Islamic State Big Breaks

[Published 24 September 2015]


America’s ongoing insistence on wanting Syria’s President - Bashar al-Assad - removed from power - continues to hinder American policy on removing the Islamic State as a threat to international peace and security.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reportedly made it patently clear to America on 2 June 2015 that the issue of removing Assad as Syria’s President should not be confused with removal of the Islamic State from the world scene:

“The U.S.‘s “obsession” with [Syria’s President] Assad isn’t helping in the common fight against the threat from Islamic State…

People put the fate of one person whom they hate above the fight against terrorism. Islamic State can go “very far” unless stopped, and air strikes alone “are not going to do the trick.

If people continue to acquiesce with what is going on and continue to acquiesce with those who categorically refuse to start the political process until Bashar Assad disappears, then I’m not very optimistic for the future of this region…”

America should have:

1. accepted Lavrov’s sage advice

2. acknowledged the ineffectiveness of its coalition led air strikes in preventing the Islamic State rapidly expanding its occupation into large areas of Syrian and Iraqi sovereign territory causing the horrific murder, brutal beheading and ethnic cleansing of its civilian populations

3. joined Russia in preparing an alternative agreed plan of action to defeat the Islamic State

America missed this opportunity - enabling the Islamic State to continue its policy of conquest and subjugation contributing to the current refugee crisis now threatening to sink the European Union’s capacity to meet the tide of human misery knocking on its door.
Two earlier unanimous UN Security Council Resolutions — Resolutions 2170 and 2199 — had specified measures short of military action aimed at stopping the Islamic State.

Both however have failed to halt Islamic State’s brutal advance.

Resolution 2170 — passed on 15 August 2014 - clearly enunciated the Security Council’s revulsion at the Islamic State’s territorial grab and genocidal intentions following the self-declaration of the Islamic State in June 2014 - stressing:

“that terrorism can only be defeated by a sustained and comprehensive approach involving the active participation and collaboration of all States, and international and regional organizations to impede, impair, isolate and incapacitate the terrorist threat,”

Only a third Security Council resolution urging military action binding on “all States”can hope to meet this Security Council prescription.

American Secretary for State John Kerry has apparently learnt nothing from Lavrov’s June warning - declaring mantra-like on 19 September:

“We (America and Russia) share the same goals. We share the goal of ridding the region of ISIL. They (Russia) allege that they also share the goal of a political transition that leads to a stable, whole, united secular Syria.”

Kerry continues to tie the fate of the Islamic State to the fate of Assad — which will assuredly fall on deaf Russian ears.

America and Russia need to jointly sponsor the passage of that third Security Council resolution authorizing military action against the Islamic State by a UN-commanded armed force under Article 42 of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

Negotiating that Resolution’s terms can be considerably expedited by understandings being reached with Russia that once that UN Mandated-force is constituted:

1. America and its coalition partners will only continue air strikes on the Islamic State as part of any such UN force

2. Those American-backed rebel forces seeking Assad’s overthrow and those Russian-backed Assad forces defending Assad will be respectively withdrawn behind agreed red lines until the Islamic State is routed.

Syria’s seven million displaced people may then just be able to see the slightest glimmer of light at the end of a long and very dark tunnel.

Iran Deal Presages UN Military Action Against Islamic State

[Published 24 July 2015]


China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, America and the European Union (E3/EU+3) — the Septet — have shown a rare degree of international cooperation in signing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear horizons.

Such unanimity presages the possibility of a United Nations Security Council Resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter authorizing military action against Islamic State — already declared a threat to international peace and security in Security Council Resolutions 2170 and 2199.

The Security Council’s inability to commence military action to free vast tracts of Syria and Iraq and its captive civilian populations from Islamic State rule — has been frustrated by the following conflicting national interests of Septet members and Iran:

1. Russia and Iran backing the Assad regime in Syria

2. America, France, Germany and the United Kingdom forming part of the London 11 supporting rebels attempting to overthrow the Assad regime

3. China and Russia vetoing Security Council resolutions aimed at resolving the Syrian conflict.

4. Shiite Iran — backed by Russia - focusing on preserving its interests in Iraq - the first Arab country to be ruled by a Shia government since Saladin overthrew the Fatimids in Egypt in 1171.

Preserving these competing interests could explain the deliberate and extraordinary decision by the Septet to not demand changes in Iraq’s current aggressive and hostile behaviour — as President Obama’s remarks at a news conference hailing the JPCOA make clear:

“And my hope is that building on this deal, we can continue to have conversations with Iran that incentivize them to behave differently in the region, to be less aggressive, less hostile, more cooperative, to operate the way we expect nations in the international community to behave. But we’re not counting on it."

So this deal is not contingent on Iran changing its behavior. It’s not contingent on Iran suddenly operating like a liberal democracy. It solves one particular problem, which is making sure they don’t have a bomb. And the point I’ve repeatedly made and I believe is hard to dispute is that it’ll be a lot easier for us to check Iran’s nefarious activities, to push back against the other areas where they operate contrary to our interests or our allies’ interests if they don’t have the bomb.

And — and so will they change their behavior? Will we seek to gain more cooperation from them in resolving issues like Syria or what’s happening in Iraq, to stop encouraging Houthis in Yemen, we’ll continue to engage with them.

Although keep in mind that unlike the Cuba situation, we’re not normalizing diplomatic relations here. So the contacts will continue to be limited, but will we try to encourage them to take a more constructive path? Of course. But we’re not betting on it. And in fact, having resolved the nuclear issue, we will be in a stronger position to work with Israel, work with the Gulf countries, work with our other partners, work with the Europeans to bring additional pressure to bear on Iran around those issues that remain of concern.”

Iran - diplomatically unscathed, emboldened and financially enriched once the current international sanctions omelette has been unscrambled — will not change its behaviour — nor will the Septet members have to abandon their perceived national interests.

Iran’s macabre dance with death will assuredly continue in the Middle East.

Obama could be betting this latest show of Septet-Iranian co-operation will finally procure Security Council approval to destroy their common enemy - Islamic State — which Obama’s American-led coalition of 62 States has spectacularly failed to accomplish.

Hopefully Obama’s giant gamble pays this huge dividend.