The New York Times
By TIM ARANGOSEPT. 9, 2014
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.
“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.
Continue
reading the main story
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.”
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 .”
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.”
Azam Ahmed
contributed reporting from Erbil , Iraq , and Omar al-Jawoshy from Baghdad .
No comments:
Post a Comment