President Obama on Wednesday accepted that the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria had left his preferred Middle East policy in shambles and announced a new one centered on building a broad coalition to fight the Islamist extremist group.
In doing so, the president finally accepted direct U.S. intervention in Syria. Many of the actions he proposed in Wednesday night’s speech to the nation were those his administration had previously rejected as impractical over the past three years, including U.S. bombing raids and arming Syrian rebels believed to be “moderates.”
The move comes after a stunning turnaround in Iraq, where several hundred U.S. troops are advising Iraqi Arab and Kurdish forces, and U.S. warplanes have conducted more than 150 airstrikes. Obama said he has ordered the air campaign expanded and is sending 475 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, bringing the number to 1,600.
But the key to his new approach is similar to the one he has pursued since taking office in 2009 promising to end U.S. wars in the Mideast: Depending on regional partners to be the “boots on the ground,” while America provides support and encouragement.
“This is not our fight alone,” Obama said. “American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region.”
Before the speech, Obama spoke by phone with Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, and U.S. officials told reporters Riyadh was on board with the coalition and plans to host efforts to train Syrian rebels. Secretary of State John Kerry was in Baghdad on Wednesday, meeting with Iraqi officials to pledge U.S. support, and was to travel later this week to Saudi Arabia and Jordan for further coalition-building efforts after a meeting Thursday in the Saudi city of Jeddah with Arab foreign ministers.
Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was in Ankara Monday to draw in key NATO ally Turkey.
But there are two major obstacles to building a new “coalition of the willing” to fight ISIS that may work against Obama’s ambitious goal to “degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL.”
Most important is the fact that many potential U.S. partners take a different view of where their interests lie.
“Allies are an Achilles heel. We need to recognize that,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official who now is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Oil-rich Saudi Arabia, where a variant of the Salafi Islam on which ISIS’s ideology is based is the state religion, has for decades been a major funder of Islamist extremist groups worldwide and has not fully renounced that role.
“The rise of this noxious form of radical Islamism comes on the back of petrodollars,” Rubin said.
And many other Arab Gulf governments, most notably Kuwait and Qatar, tolerate financial support by some of their citizens for Islamist extremists — and in some cases provide it themselves — both to placate sympathizers among their own populations and as a tool to gain influence in the Middle East.
All of these Sunni Arab nations fear a U.S. rapprochement with Iran’s Shia Islamist regime, which supports the government of Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad and has been aiding the Iraqi government against ISIS — making it at least a nominal U.S. ally. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, for example, have significant Shia populations they fear could revolt if the anti-ISIS coalition is seen as a sectarian one.
Though Kerry declared in Baghdad that “the United States does not cooperate, militarily or otherwise, nor does it have any intention in this process of doing so, with Iran,” there’s a perception that the Obama administration is warming to Tehran, said Blaise Misztal, director of foreign policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
And Turkey, which the administration sees as one of 10 core countries in an anti-ISIS coalition, “is Pakistan on the Mediterranean. It’s been as two-faced as it could be,” Rubin said. “We wouldn’t have the Islamic State as we have it now if it were not for Turkey.”
Both Rubin and Misztal noted that there is considerable evidence that the Islamist government of now-President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has aided the growth of the ISIS with both material and rhetorical support. Turkey also has done little to stem the flow of foreign fighters — now estimated to number about 12,000, including about 100 Americans — into Syria.
The other obstacle is confusion and anger in the region over a U.S. Middle East policy that seems as permanent as a sand dune in a shamal.
Just a year ago, in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Obama said America’s diplomatic efforts would focus on two key goals: a nuclear deal with Iran and a peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians — both of which now take a back seat to the fight against ISIS. Meanwhile, many nations were angered that the president had ignored his own red line on Syria and not acted when the Assad government was caught using chemical weapons against its own people.
“Across the board there’s dissatisfaction with his Middle East policy” that will make it harder for Obama to convince potential partners he means business this time, Misztal said.
“A lot of countries are wary of getting left high and dry,” he said.
