About Us

IMRA
IMRA
IMRA

 

Subscribe

Search


...................................................................................................................................................


Sunday, October 26, 2014
Yoram Schweitzer: Israel not currently top priority for radical Islam

Behind the ISIS Smokescreen
Yoram Schweitzer
http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538&articleid=7936

SUMMARY: Israel is not currently a top priority for Al Qaeda, Jabhat
al-Nusra, or even for ISIS. Yet in light of the situation described above,
and since these organizations regard Israel as a partner in the Western
coalition, they may choose to undertake action against it at an earlier
stage than originally planned stage. Despite this risk, it is best for
Israel to avoid initiating premature military measures against them, as long
as it is not forced into an operation in order to thwart direct action
against it. Israel should leave this task to the unprecedented broad-based
international coalition assembled against these organizations, while still
contributing to the success of the mission assuming neither a high profile
nor a leading role.

The horrifying scenes filmed by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
and released to the international media are giving new meaning to the terms
“extremism” and “brutality.” Compared with ISIS’s cruelty, the massacres
occurring elsewhere in the world seem relatively tolerable. Countries and
terrorist organizations involved in murder and terror campaigns, such as the
Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, the ayatollahs’ regime in Iran, Hizbollah,
Hamas, and even factions allied with Al Qaeda, are being considered as
possibly legitimate partners in the war against ISIS.

The formation of a broad international coalition comprised of about 40
Western and Arab countries, with varying levels of involvement, is
indicative of ISIS’s success in positioning itself as a global threat. This
coalition is already operating in Iraq and Syria, mainly through aerial
attacks and providing aid to the forces fighting on the ground. In Iraq, its
activity is well defined due to the clear distinction between friend and
foe. The situation in Syria, on the other hand, is more complex, since
massively attacking the Salafi-Jihadist organizations including ISIS, Al
Qaeda, and Jabhat al-Nusra, may contribute to the survival of the Assad
regime, therefore contradicting the essence of coalition formed against
those organizations. These organizations, especially Jabhat al-Nusra and its
partners from the “Khorasan Army” directed by the Al Qaeda headquarters,
have consolidated their position in Syria, gaining control of extensive
areas and using them to prepare attacks in neighboring countries and the
West.

In this context, a September 28 statement by Jabhat al-Nusra leader Mohammed
al-Julani, condemning the coalition attacks in Syria, should be noted, as he
referred to them as “a Western crusade against Islam.” Al-Julani also
threatened that the attacks would have severe consequences, hinting at
possible retaliation in Western countries. Later, threats were also
reiterated by Al Qaeda’s partners in Hejaz and the Maghreb’s spokesmen.

In addition to attacking the West, Al-Julani was critical of ISIS, therefore
giving rise to doubt as to feasibility of reconciliation and rapprochement
between ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, Al Qaeda. The poisonous verbal exchanges
between ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghadadi and his spokesmen on the one hand
and Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Julani’s patron, on the other,
have for months been accompanied by battles between ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra
over control of large areas in Syria. Recently, however, senior religious
figures in the global jihad camp have appealed to al-Baghdadi, asking him to
avoid a fitna (internal discord), considered a grave sin in Islam. This
appeal was designed to test the possibility of an alliance against what they
consider a “total war” declared by the West against Islam.

The main obstacle in the way of an alliance between the jihadist
organizations is al-Baghdadi’s provocative step of appointing himself as
Caliph, placing him above all other Muslim leaders, regardless of their
identity, including heads of state, and of course leaders of the other
Salafi-Jihadist organizations. This self-appointment may prevent willful
cooperation with other leaders. Nevertheless, the possibility of ad hoc
cooperation between field operatives belonging to Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS
in Syria or other countries cannot be ruled out. In Lebanon, for example,
Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS operatives cooperated in fighting against Hezbollah
and the Lebanese military in the Arsal area where three of the captured
Lebanese soldiers were executed: two beheaded by ISIS and one shot to death
by Jabhat al-Nusra.

Al-Zawahiri, whose status as leader of Al Qaeda and the global jihad
movement has been severely challenged by al-Baghdadi’s actions, is striving
to leverage international focus on ISIS in order to divert attention from
his organization’s preparations to take advantage of the American withdrawal
from Afghanistan at the end of this year. Al Qaeda, whose operatives have
acquired combat experience in Pakistan and Afghanistan, together with the
Taliban and other local forces, had also used the Syrian theater to identify
and recruit new volunteers with suitable credentials, in order to expand its
manpower and train operatives for future operations. That was apparently,
the purpose of the “Khorasan Army,” whose existence and objectives were
recently unveiled, following the bombardment of its camp in Syria.

These preparations are also reflected in the establishment of the “Al Qaeda
in the Indian Subcontinent” (AQIS) organization, whose founding was
announced by al-Zawhiri at the beginning of September this year. The
declared purpose of the organization is to reinforce jihadist activity in
Pakistan, India, Burma, and Bangladesh. According to both official reports
from Pakistan and the organization’s own announcements – despite different
versions of the degree of success – the new organization has already tried
to carry out an ambitious and daring attack designed to damage a Pakistani
warship and to attack an American destroyer. Action on this scale, had it
succeeded as planned, would have caused great damage and cost many lives, in
addition to harming the prestige of the fleets of the targeted countries.
Furthermore, the planning of such attacks indicates that Al Qaeda is not
resting on its laurels, and refutes the assessments by senior American
administration officials that Al Qaeda is a spent force.

Although the world’s attention is focused on the effort to stop ISIS, it is
clear that at least at the current stage of the conflict, the countries in
the coalition are reluctant to conduct ground operations on the scale needed
to completely eliminate ISIS’s grip in Iraq and Syria.

The results of the global campaign against ISIS will directly affect the
fate of various minorities in the Middle East, the lives of hundreds of
thousands of refugees forced to abandon their areas of residence, and the
stability of regimes in the region. At the same time, it is clear that there
will also be consequences regarding Al Qaeda’s ability to resume its key
role in global terrorism.

It stands to reason that a considerable proportion of the cadres of fighters
on the various jihad fronts around the world, headed by those currently in
Syria and Iraq may eventually choose to join Al Qaeda. This is particularly
an option if ISIS proves unable to fulfill its pretentious promises to
institute an Islamic Caliphate. Some are liable to find a new home in Al
Qaeda in order to fulfil their militant aspirations and desire to take part
in the global jihad. It is also quite clear that Al Qaeda is preparing for a
renewal of its activity under the smokescreen of the terror inflicted by
ISIS that is blinding the world . Thus the West is liable to find itself
again facing an enemy it had already considered past its peak.

Israel is not currently a top priority for Al Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra, or
even for ISIS. Yet in light of the situation described above, and since
these organizations regard Israel as a partner in the Western coalition,
they may choose to undertake action against it at an earlier stage than
originally planned stage. Despite this risk, it is best for Israel to avoid
initiating premature military measures against them, as long as it is not
forced into an operation in order to thwart direct action against it. Israel
should leave this task to the unprecedented broad-based international
coalition assembled against these organizations, while still contributing to
the success of the mission assuming neither a high profile nor a leading
role.

** The author thanks intern Elior Albachari, for his contribution to the
writing of this article.

Search For An Article

....................................................................................................

Contact Us

POB 982 Kfar Sava
Tel 972-9-7604719
Fax 972-3-7255730
email:imra@netvision.net.il IMRA is now also on Twitter
http://twitter.com/IMRA_UPDATES

image004.jpg (8687 bytes)