A DIFFERENT STRATEGY

Never before in modern history has the Middle East lived through such a bloody and unstable period as we are observing at the moment. After the not too fragrant odours of the "Arab Spring", which was accompanied by street fighting, executions, mass rapes and violence, kidnappings by local vigilantes, coups d'etat, the impoverishment of a huge number of people, the appearance of hundreds of thousands of refugees, in the middle of the year the terrorist Sunni grouping "The Islamic State" (or "the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" or the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria") appeared.like a sauce served to spice up the main dish. It had existed earlier, but a few years ago nobody could have surmised that the affiliate structure of "Al Qaeda" would eclipse this, the mightiest terrorist organisation in the world.

The extremists gained in strength during the fighting in Syria, but for some reason did not go on to make a dash for Damascus;they undertook a mass offensive on northern and north-western Iraq, where they now control a fairly large swathes of territory and consider it their aim to further expand their activities and set up a so-called "Islamic caliphate". In advancing their own ideals, the Islamists have no aversion to slave-trading, mass executions and the slaughter of civilians. But what is even worse is that the "Islamic State [IS]" has swept away the customary borders. And the Middle East that was formed after two world wars and the apportionment of forces that is described in detail in all the textbooks on international relations no longer exists and will apparently not exist anymore.

It is believed that what is taking place will not only deal a hefty blow at the policy and authority of the USA in the region, but will also pose a direct threat to Washington. In actual fact, judging by the reports broadcast by CNN and the BBC, the British are much more bothered about Scotland than Ukraine, but it is the Iraqi-Syrian Islamists who are worrying the Americans. At least, the television address by the head of the White House, Barack Obama, to his fellow citizens has attracted a great deal of attention.The US president reiterated once again that America is heading the planet-wide struggle against terrorism and will hunt down the terrorists wherever they are. In the case of the "IS" this should take place with help of "a broad and sustained counter-terrorism strategy", which will be based on a "systematic campaign of air strikes", with the support of forces fighting the terrorists on the ground" and with the considerable counter-terrorist capabilities of the USA itself. But "American forces will not have a combat mission -we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq," Obama promised.

It is noteworthy that, according to the results of a public opinion poll, two-thirds of Americans support the military operation against "IS", but only 30 per cent of those asked believe that the president had a clear-cut strategy. Obama was accused of being unable to save the life of Americans and of being ineffectual in the taxpayer-fundedfight against "IS", when the American journalist Steven Sotloff was executed.

Against this backdrop, the head of the White House is having to make a special effort to prove his decisiveness and authority - he has even stated that in this case he does not need to obtain the individual consent of the US Congress to deploy American military forces. But Obama is for all that hoping that his allies will come to his aid and in his speech he mentioned the setting up of a coalition. True, he did not say exactly who would be in it. Taking into account that on the eve of president's speech, Secretary of State John Kerry met the foreign ministers of the leading Arab countries in [the Saudi Arabian capital] Jeddah, and talks are still on-going.

There is moreover one more important element in Obama's speech, namely that the USA will not only use military force against "IS" in Iraq, but also on the territory of Syria, on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border". And, whereas in the first case Obama does not need the consent of Congress, in the second case he does not need the consent of Bashar al-Assad. Therefore many commentators immediately noted that it looks as if Obama is trying to kill two birds with one stone, both "IS" and the al-Assad regime with his administration's new strategy. It is hardly likely that any convincing reaction will come from Syria itself, which has been split into the area occupied by Bashar al-Assad's supporters, the territory under the control of the Kurds and the zone controlled by the rebel fighters. 

Naturally, it is highly unlikely that the USA's actions can, on the contrary, be assessed as aid to al-Assad. This will most likely be assistance to one set of fighters against another. For example, it was recently reported that a leader of the Islamist "Ahrar al-Sham" grouping, Hassan Abboud, perished along with at least 20 of his comrades-in-arms. "Ahrar al-Sham" blamed ISIL for the attack. What is not clear here is whether we should refer to all the armed people in Syria as fighters (the ones who are not as radical as "IS", but still fighters) or should we infact call them rebels and opposition forces? Incidentally, in his speech Obama also called upon Congress to finally approve the allocation of half a billion dollars to arm and train "the moderate forces of the Syrian opposition". 

In Iraq the main stakes are being made on the new government. After Nouri al- Maliki stepped down, who had been accused by the Sunnis and Kurds of monopolising power, at the beginning of September a new cabinet was approved headed by the moderate, Shiite Haider al-Abadi. US State Department Head John Kerry believes that the Cabinet of Ministers, in which the posts have shared out amongShias, Sunnis and Kurds, may be possible to resolve the differences among all the ethnic and religious groups. But the new government was by no means chosenby all the members of parliament; just as before the support of the Kurds and Sunnis wasof merely nominal. Many influential Shiites like Adel Abdul Mahdi, for instance, remain in the post of oil minister and Ibrahim al-Jaafari in the post of foreign minister.

The Kurds seriously tried to oppose the formation of the Iraqi government; they were dissatisfied with the way the oil revenues were being distributed, they are demanding wage rises and legislative restrictions on the authoritative and punitive actions of Baghdad and others. The Kurds are trying to market the "black gold" which is of a very high quality in that part of Iraq and of which there is a huge amount (like the "blue fuel" [gas] incidentally) bypassing Baghdad and are actively involved in the fight against "IS". Many observers believe that the situation that has taken shape (and precisely that the lands taken by "IS" have been cut off from Baghdad) improves the chances of Iraqi Kurdistan gaining independence. What is more, the Kurds cannot particularly boast of special military successes; at least without American air power things would be going really badly for them. Now even the British are going to supply the Kurds with weapons. It is common knowledge that the Peshmerga fighters are receiving assistance from the Iranians, although Iran, like Syria, Turkey and Iraq proper, is not in the least bit interested in Kurdistan gaining independence.

However, the "IS" has a very odd way of compelling deadly enemies to enter into strategic alliances. Thus, the USA and Iran have suddenly turned out to be on the same side, which is accompanied by even a relative understanding between Tehran and the"six" negotiators regarding Iran's nuclear programme. As Iran's deputy foreign minister Abbas Araghchi stated, "at the upcoming round of talks in New York on 18 September the sides will come to a final, comprehensive agreement". According to the deputy minister, the issue of the so-called military component in Iran's nuclear programme "has remained a thing of the past".

As far as the rest of the countries in the region are concerned, many experts believe that Jordan, where groupings linked to "al-Qaeda" and the "Muslim Brotherhood" are active,is the most vulnerable at the present time. Standing in the "IS"'s way to ill-assorted Lebanon is "Hezbollah", yet another example of "new terrorists changing minuses to pluses and vice versa. Sheikh Naim Qassem, the deputy of Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has a sceptical attitude to the USA's efforts and believes that the American's aim is "simply to limit the scale of the danger and get rich in the process". Besides, there are reports that "IS" agents are actively trying to attract Palestinians into their ranks. The recent "missile war" may have provided breeding ground for this. Qatar and Kuwait, from which it is believed the Islamists are receiving many private donations, are keeping aloof. But Saudi Arabia's further actions will be the most interesting of all. The Saudis are evidently in no hurry to become embroiled in the conflict. They are making donations, believing that a struggle against the Sunni extremists might anger the local Sunni radicals. Interestingly, is it accidental that there have been calls in the American media for the information about Saudi Arabia's involvement in the terrorist acts of 9/11 to be declassified?

If there are some kind of outside forces controlling the processes occurring in the Middle East for all that, then it is possible that the ensuring chaos,when borders between states are no longer important and there is no difference between allies and opponents, is an important part of an unknown plan. It is common knowledge that new models are cast from the destruction of the old and the chaos of the initial material. But if the chaos is still uncontrollable, then the whole world community needs to combine its efforts to combat it. For example, Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated that the USA's noble efforts on their own may not be sufficient.

Efforts need to be co-ordinated if only to avoid yet more senseless victims among the civilian population. Frequently the air strikes inexcusably rain down on the heads of children rather than on the heads of terrorists. The fighters have already become deeply entrenched in the towns and cities of Iraq and Syria. Ultimately they can also work out ways of shielding themselves from the air strikes as well. As far as "the support for the forces fighting the terrorists on the ground," is concerned, it must be targeted, clear-cut and probably approved by most of the members of the UN Security Council.

A completely different strategy is needed to effectively combat extremism on Earth.