08/10/2014
Miquel Porta Perales is a writer
Nobody should be surprised by the barbarism unleashed by the jihadist Islamic Army of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), now the Islamic State (IS). Unfortunately, history – barbarism – repeats itself. Something similar happened in the 2003-2005 biennium. And there stands the United States, with a Barack Obama who seems to have renounced world leadership in security and defence issues and only takes decisions – selective bombings or rearming of Kurdish militias – making a virtue of necessity. An America which, incidentally, exceedingly praised the so-called 'Arab Spring' and armed the opponents of Bashar al-Asad without due precautions. They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind. Not to mention a European Union without ideology, politics, army, or budget to guarantee the security and defence of the continent. A European Union whose states are content with maintaining their influence – incidentally, limited – in some regional areas. Meanwhile, States with dubious democratic credentials such as Russia and China are marking their profiles on the international stage.
The question: what's likely to happen – in the short or medium term – with the IS? If we consider 1) that this manifestation of jihadism is only strong in places with Sunnis discontented with the government, i.e., part of Syria and parts of Iraq; 2) that its power has peaked in Syria and starts to diminish in Iraq by the American bombing and the action of the Kurdish militias armed by the West (would a hypothetical independent Kurdish State generate problems in the area, including Turkey?); 3) their capability to fire is the result of material captured in Iraq; 4) that it only seems capable of developing a mobile warfare in desert territory; 5) their funding depends on their control over oil wells, and on what they collect with extortion and donations; wells they can lose and extortion and donations that can be cut with the military, police and political will to do so; if we consider all this, it is plausible to think that the IS will end up being – in the short or medium term – another jihadist organisation, more or less powerful and mutant, like those that already exist in the Middle East and in other areas like Mali, Chad or Nigeria. Moreover, it is unlikely that the Caliphate of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – Caliph Ibrahim – that is, the Islamic State, will consolidate in a territorial sense, with demarcated borders. In any case, a real threat to add to existing ones. A threat that would diminish if the West should understand that the 'war against terrorism' exists and, if for example, it should decide – if we don't go, they may come – to attack the IS in its Syrian domain with all available means – including land intervention. Something which, on the other hand – interventions have their own logic – would benefit the interests of Bashar al-Asad.
Four final considerations. First: what is the role of Iran and Qatar in this conflict? Are Iran and Qatar good allies of the West? Second: attention should be paid to Libya which could be next on the list of international jihadism – the relay. Third: we should not lose sight of an Al Qaeda which, seeking to not lose prominence in the international jihadist movement, could emulate the IS. Fourth: Western security largely depends on the control and neutralisation of the young attracted by this transnational jihadism like the ISIL or IS. It appears that a large number of these young people come from the European Union. We will have to rely on – besides the United States and its Western and non-Western allies – in national security forces.