Current Issues and
Policies No. 2018-23
December 18, 2018
Dr. Lee Daewoo
Senior Research Fellow, the Sejong Institute
delee@sejong.org
Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Islamic extremist
militant organization, once held jurisdiction over the territory size of
Britain and 8 million people and self-proclaimed the rebirth of the Caliphate.
However, the militant group, notorious for its indiscriminate killings, atrocious
public executions, and provocative propaganda, lost its territories in Mosul,
its largest stronghold, and
Raqqa, its symbolic capital, in May and October 2017 respectively after the
offensives launched by the U.S.-led coalition forces - thus, the
self-proclaimed caliphate became history. Nevertheless, the Middle East is
not short of factors that has the potential to prompt conflicts, along with the
Kurds’ separatist movements and the Trump administration’s policy shift
regarding Israel and Iran, in addition to already ongoing circumstances: ISIS
is not eradicated; conflicts in Syria and Yemen have persisted because of the
Sunni-Shi’a schism and involvement of other powers. Consequently, the
region is predicted to witness severe instability in 2019 as well.
Survival of ISIS, Resurge of Al-Qaeda and Taliban
Despite losing its
territories, ISIS maintains the strength when it self-proclaimed the caliphate
in 2014 and still poses a formidable threat in the Middle East and North Africa
(MENA). According to the U.S. Congressional Report Service report RL33487,
ISIS held control of five enclaves in western and southern Syria as of August
2017 and some forces remain in the region bordering Iraq. The report also
conjectured that a number of ISIS fighters live in Idlib province in northeast
Syria, controlled by the Syrian opposition forces and Kurds.
Moreover, according to the ISIS organizational chart that the
organization made public in June 2016, it managed branches in 12 countries and
secret forces in 7 countries other than the territories in Syria and Iraq.
Without the reports that the ISIS disbanded, it is imaginable that these
branches still remain unscathed. And there are estimates that the ISIS foreign
fighters who returned to their home country amounts to 10,000 people and the
‘lone wolves’ who sympathize with ISIS all around the world reaches 8,000
people. Therefore, if they resume terrorist activities, a second caliphate,
instigated by ISIS, could surface.
Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda and Taliban, which struck the fear of
terrorism into countries around the world before the emergence of ISIS, still have
the capability to carry out terrorist acts anytime in the Middle East or
elsewhere, albeit being waned in strength. The agents and proponents of
Al-Qaeda, enfeebled and disintegrated into several branches after its leader
Osama bin Laden’s death, are supposedly engaged in rebel or terrorist
activities in Syria (10,000-20,000), Somalia (7,000-9,000), Libya (5,000), and
Yemen (4,000). Particularly, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) engaged
in Yemeni civil war, Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and Al-Nusra Front active in the
Levant are well-known Al-Qaeda branches and it has faced rivalry with the
Taliban forces in Afghanistan.
Lying low in Pakistan, the Taliban leadership, which lost power in
Kabul after the post-September 11 U.S. invasion, aims to reclaim territorial
control of Afghanistan. It is divided into different committees that supervise
finances and fundraising, military operations, propaganda and public relations,
religious affairs, administration, and other tasks. Currently, it is evaluated
that the Taliban controls 14 percent of Afghanistan’s 399 provincial districts
and battles with the government forces in 30 percent of districts.
Complexity Defines Power Competition in the Middle East
The age-old latent factors of conflict that subsided during the
Syrian civil war and international campaign against ISIS resurfaced, casting a
dark shadow in Middle East politics. The Syrian civil war is a culmination
of sectarian dispute, regime suppression and opposition, emergence of ISIS,
Saudi Arabia-Iran hegemonic rivalry, and the intervention of great powers such
as the U.S. and Russia. In Syria, although the Sunni population constitutes
the overwhelming majority (75 percent), followed by 15 percent Shias, the Shia
Assad regime governed the country and suppressed the Sunni population. The
suppressed Sunnis organized the opposition forces to rebel against the Shia
regime. This led to the civil war that continues until now, and amid these
struggles, the ISIS established a self-proclaimed caliphate after taking
control of eastern Syria and western Iraq. The Sunni-leading Saudi Arabia
intervened in the war to support the Sunni opposition and mobilized the support
of other Sunni-majority countries including Gulf Cooperation Council members
such as Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar as well as Jordan, Sudan, and Egypt. The
U.S. has also cooperated with the Kingdom to defeat ISIS and to oust Assad from
power.
Meanwhile, the Shia leader Iran provided rear-support for the Assad
regime through Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force and Hezbollah in
Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine also provided aid to Iran, interfering in the
conflict in Syria. As a consequence, Iran has cemented the ‘crescent belt’ or
‘Shia belt,’ forming Iraq-Syria-Lebanon connection. Russia, like the U.S.,
participated in the Syrian civil war to defeat ISIS, but had other motives in
mind - to defend the Assad regime from the opposition forces. The Syrian regime
has provided airbases and naval bases to Russia, crucial for Russia to flex its
influence in the Mediterranean.
Moreover, Israel, having uncomfortable relations with Iran, sided
with the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, fearing Iran’s expanding presence in Syria. As
such, the Syrian civil war pushed countries to form coalitions unimaginable in
the past - Israel taking the same side with Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
National interests also shaped coalitions in the conflict in Yemen.
Erupted in September 2014, the Yemeni civil war has been a violent struggle
with Sunni President Abd Rabbuh Mansur al-Hadi on one side and Shia former
President Ali Abdullah Saleh and Houthi rebels on the other side. Deposed by
the Houthis, President Hadi exiled to Saudi Arabia to request aid and Saudi
Arabia intervened to repel the Houthi forces, organizing a Sunni coalition
force and claiming that Iran provides support to Houthis. Riyadh was anxious to
be encircled by the Iran-led Shia belt (Lebanon-Syria-Iraq-Yemen axis) when a
Shia regime takes power in Yemen. The war in Yemen has intensified as external
actors continued to provide assistance: the U.S. assisted Saudi Arabia to
reinstate President Hadi in Sana and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and Lebanese
Hezbollah empowered former President Saleh’s side.
Kurds’ Determination for Independence
The Kurds who largely contributed to the eradication of ISIS are
Sunni majority population and reside in the mountainous Kurdistan that
stretches across southeast Anatolia of Turkey, northern parts of Iran, Iraq,
and Syria - about 300,000 sq km. Kurds are estimated to account for 30 million
people in the region - 15.4 million in Turkey, 6.8 million in Iran, 4.3 million
in Iraq, and 1.3 million in Syria. As they are spread across several countries,
they are referred to as the ‘gypsies in the Middle East’ and they have been
dreaming of a Kurdish independent state since the Second World War. Turkey,
Iraq, Iran, and Syria all have strained relations with Kurds in fear of the
fragmentation of the state and even committed genocides against the civilian
population.
The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), which contributed to the
downfall of ISIS with the support of the anti-ISIS coalition, pushed forward
the referendum for independence, in defiance of the opposition from the
international community. The Iraqi government forces, along with pro-Iranian
Shia militia forces, conquered the Kirkuk region, the oil fields in the KRG,
and Turkey has waged an offensive against Kurd-majority militia group YPG
stationed in northern Syria, designating the group as separatist terrorist
organization posing a threat to its national security. While the reports of
full-scale war are absent, such situation will be unsurprising. Consequently, as
long as the KRG keeps the ambitions for independence alive, seeds of
confrontation will remain and may expand to a civil war.
U.S. Transition in Its Policy toward the Middle East
Meanwhile, the Trump administration announced the withdrawal
from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, commonly known as the Iran
nuclear deal) and the relocation of U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem on May
8 and May 14 respectively. As a result, the U.S.-Iran relations soared and the
lingering Israel-Palestine conflict has reignited - casting a dark shadow in
the Middle Eastern politics.
JCPOA was signed by five permanent members of the UN Security
Council plus Germany (P5+1) and Iran in July 2015. Iran accepted the stringent
inspection of its nuclear program from the international community in exchange
for the removal of international economic sanctions. Nevertheless, the Trump
administration argued that Iran has violated the terms, declared the U.S.
withdrawal from the JCPOA, and re-imposed economic sanctions against Iran. Iran
repudiated against U.S. unilateral sanctions. Iran threatened to blockade the Strait
of Hormuz, the main shipping lane for Middle East oil exports. In spite of a
low possibility, if Iran takes action to inhibit passage of Strait of Hormuz,
the region will hear war drums beating.
The Israel-Palestine conflict has its roots as deep as the
Sunni-Shia schism. It is referred to as the ‘powder keg of the Middle East.’
The international community proposed the ‘two-state solution’ through the Oslo
Accord in 1993, and the-then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO
Chairman Yasser Arafat signed the accord under President Clinton’s watch. This
has somewhat deterred the conflict between the two sides. While the
construction of Israeli settlements within the Palestinian West Bank late 2016
undermined the Oslo Accord, diplomats from 70 countries convened in Paris on
January 15, 2017 at the conference for peace in the Middle East and condemned
the Israeli construction of settlements in the West Bank and reaffirmed the
two-state solution as the only solution to the lingering Israel-Palestine conflict.
Nonetheless, President Trump, immediately after his inauguration, supported
Israel’s construction of settlements in the Palestinian West Bank and signed
the executive order approving the relocation of the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem. Since this move entails the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s
capital, it destroyed the hopes of Palestinians who viewed East Jerusalem as
their capital. Recently, Guatemala and Australia hopped on this trend and other
countries are expected to join in. However, when the new Brazilian president
hinted at the possibility of relocating its embassy to Jerusalem, the Arab
League sent a warning letter to Brazil conveying that such move will aggravate
relations between Brazil and 22 member states of the Arab League. Particularly,
the Palestinian military organization Hamas warned that the relocation of the embassy
will be deemed as ‘an act of hostility against Islam.’ Therefore, Hamas and
other Islamic fundamentalists may commit terrorist acts to prevent other countries
that have diplomatic ties with Israel from moving their embassies to Jerusalem.
International Efforts for Peace in the Middle East
The international community has nothing much to do to stabilize the
political situation in the Middle East. Especially, it cannot resolve the
sectarian dispute among Muslims which undermines the political order in the
region. The issue could only be solved by Muslims alone. Hence, the
international community cannot determinedly curb hegemonic struggle between
Saudi Arabia and Iran in the Middle East and the surge of Islamic extremist
violence sparked by sectarianism. The international community could only
contribute to the stability in the MENA region by assisting the regional
economic development and the global powers, particularly the U.S. and China,
could be involved in the regional affairs within the international legal
framework.
First, the international community should help improve the
livelihood of the people in the region to make them immune from establishing or
falling into temptations of the terrorist groups. The CIA’s World Factbook
indicates that 55% of Afghans, 82.5% of Syrians, and 54% of Yemenis live below
the poverty line. The international community should come up with solutions
such as establishing a ‘Middle East stabilization fund’ (tentative) to improve
the livelihood of these people. Many global powers such as China pursue
infrastructure projects using billions of dollars around the world for their
economic interests. These investments benefit the economic development of the
beneficiaries as well as benefactors. Nevertheless, some of these investments
should be diverted to establish the Middle East stabilization fund for economic
development in the region and pursue economic stability measures for Muslim migrants
- for a safer world.
Meanwhile, it is impossible to completely block great powers’
involvement in the international community with increasing interdependence.
Still, the principles of fairness should be the premise of international
intervention. Here, fairness signifies the compliance with international law
and agreements (treaties). Washington should review the relocation of its
embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and the withdrawal of Iran nuclear deal - both
of which may have deleterious effects on the stability in the Middle East. It
should also seek changes within the framework given regarding the Oslo Accords
and JCPOA, rather than violating or annulling the whole agreement. If the U.S.
reversal has some reasonable grounds, the parties concerned will support the
U.S. This goes with Russia as well. Moscow should not categorically decline
dialogues to discuss the human rights violations in Syria that the UN Security
Council and show the willingness to resolve the issue through talks. It is
understandable that the ‘fairness’ cannot be fully warranted given that the
national interests alter the international relations. Still, the countries
should strive to abide by the established principles and norms.
While these international efforts cannot immediately stabilize the
Middle East, it could hinder any further deterioration of the situation and may
contribute to the stability in the future.
+ The
U.S. Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act in 1995, providing
the legal foundation to relocate the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem from
Tel Aviv. However, in pursuant to the presidential waiver, Presidents Bill
Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama had waived the actual relocation
every six months.
This article is based on the
author’s personal opinion and does not reflect the views of the Sejong
Institute.
*Translator’s
note: This is an unofficial translation of the original paper which was written
in Korean. All references should be made to the original paper.
File