The region’s fate rests in America’s hands

What the Arabic press is saying about the Islamic State. Translated by Racha Makarem

The recent strong statements by the United States against the Islamic State’s actions in Iraq and Syria are surprising, especially since they are coming from an administration that has been reluctant to launch any form of military intervention against problems in the Middle East, wrote Abdullah Al Otaibi in The National’s sister newspaper, the Abu Dhabi-based daily Al Ittihad.

“President Obama refused to intervene in Syria despite all the crimes against humanity committed by the regime of Bashar Al Assad against his own people, including the use of the internationally banned chemical weapons,” he wrote.

Yet Mr Obama decided to intervene against the Islamic State for several declared reasons, including the serious threat to the Yazidi and Christian minorities, and to protect American officers operating in Erbil, close to territories controlled by the organisation, he said.

After the American air strikes in Iraq following the murder of the American journalist James Foley, the US administration became more vocal in condemning the Islamic State, declaring it more dangerous than Al Qaeda, he said.

It was also predicted that ignoring the situation in Syria and allowing armed chaos to grow would turn against the US and other western countries. This is what has happened, as the Islamic State’s plans to launch strikes on US interests and to recruit terrorist elements from western countries, such as the UK.

However, condemning the Islamic State alone will not be enough to eradicate terrorism in the region. There are also Shiite terrorist organisations operating in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, and there is no way we can fight Sunni terrorism but give Shiite terrorists the opportunity to continue their operations, he wrote.

Terrorism cannot be eliminated by favouring some terrorist groups at the expense of others. We cannot eliminate the Islamic State in Iraq without eliminating terrorist Shiite militias, and we cannot eliminate Al Nusra Front without eliminating Hizbollah, the Lebanese terrorists who are fighting in Syria, the writer added.

Any bias towards one group or another will affect the entire situation, although it may be tactically successful in eliminating the targeted organisation.

Biased attitudes and a chaotic environment could create more violent and bloody organisations in the future, the writer argued.

In an opinion piece by Ghassan Charbel, the editor-in-chief of the London-based Al Hayat, asked the United States to step up its efforts to save people in the region despite all the past grievances and shortcomings.

“I write with anger after hearing from a politician living in the heart of the current crisis. He told me that if the American president Barack Obama wasn’t able to quickly make up his mind, the Islamic State will gain more power and control to ensure its long-term existence, which will lead to years of massacres and the end of Iraq, Syria and perhaps other places.

“We demand international and regional action but this move cannot be taken without the US.

“We need to take several steps to defeat the Islamic State, to stop Sunni-Shiite conflict, to reach a peaceful solution in Syria, to stop the policies of destabilisation in the region, and to establish a regional framework to contain disputes under the international umbrella.”

The region’s fate hangs on the White House’s decision before it’s too late, the writer concluded.

Translated by Racha Makarem