In light of this, what is the future of ISIS and Al-Qaeda?
Those who have read my previous posts would note that ISIS and Al-Qaeda are both about to suffer the worst defeats in their histories in Syria at the hands of Russia. Russia has fought an historic 'Iraq War in reverse,' which has greatly reversed the tide of radical Islamism in Syria.
With Trump agreeing - rightly so, might I add - to the direction and implication of Russian intervention in Syria, Al-Qaeda and ISIS are unlikely to have a substantial presence in Syria. Assad is the ultimate antidote to radical Islam in Syria.
Previously I have stated that ISIS, getting routed in Sirte, would not disappear forever in Libya. But Trump's likely plan of installing Haftar Al-Khalifa as the Libyan dictator would cause ISIS and Al-Qaeda to both be substantially weakened in North Africa as well.
But what of Iraq? Iraq depends very much on what Trump means to do there. If Trump 'takes their oil,' as he said he would in his campaign, Iraq would stabilize. (It should be noted here that in Trump language, 'take their oil' means increasing oil relations with Iraq. This would definitely stabilize Iraq substantially.)
If Trump wages war on the Iranian elements of the Iraqi government, Trump is doomed to failure. The best thing Trump can do - and his likely policy, might I add - is increase the use of American soft-power in Iraq to stabilize it, not change the regime there.
In the interim, as Iraq recovers, ISIS would still have a foothold in the country. They would try and destabilize Iraq - depending on how Trump reacts to it would depend on whether or not Iraq stabilizes.
With ISIS virtually non-existent in Syria and weakened in Iraq, it would have a different goal: provoking civil war in Saudi Arabia.
Scarily, ISIS has perhaps the perfect platform from which to destabilize Saudi Arabia. ISIS borders Saudi Arabia in Iraq; ISIS sleeper cells are already established in the northern provinces of Saudi Arabia; Saudi Arabia is preoccupied by a fruitless war in Yemen; the Saudi economy is currently weaker than in decades; and to top it all off, Mohammed Bin Salman is the perfect candidate for America's dupe, the personification of American influence in Saudi Arabia.
ISIS' future is sealed, forcing the world into a no-win situation. If ISIS is left unchecked in Iraq and Syria, it would destroy 2 beautiful countries and their minorities, and threaten the stability of neighbouring countries. But if ISIS is destroyed in Syria and Iraq, Iran looks the winner to the Arabs, causing Saudis and other Gulf countries to rally to ISIS' call and bitterly fight their governments.
But the second option is preferable. It's the option Russia and America have chosen in Putin and Trump. ISIS' new target after Iraq and Syria is, of course, Saudi Arabia, which it may even succeed in obtaining.
But what of Al-Qaeda?
Al-Qaeda is likely to have a resurgence. With its complete destruction in Syria and Libya, Al-Qaeda would invest more heavily in Yemen, giving Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) priority in funding. AQAP needs only for Yemen to go into famine in order to drastically increase appeal in Yemen. It already has much appeal in that it is not as barbaric or cruel as ISIS - if it continues its powerful soft-power policies, AQAP would exponentially grow in power in Yemen as Al-Qaeda crumbles in Libya and Syria.
Trump is unlikely to wage war against Saudi interests in Yemen. Like Obama, Trump would quietly support Saudi's war in Yemen, even should it cause Al-Qaeda to grow substantially in Yemen.
Not only would Al-Qaeda resurge in Yemen, but in Afghanistan as well. With Trump planning on withdrawing from Afghanistan - which, I might add, should have been done by Obama after the death of Osama Bin Laden - America would be set to return there in 3 - 5 years.
Trump would not make the mistake Obama did. Trump would not fund the Taliban in Pakistan while withdrawing from Afghanistan. Obama did almost exactly that in Iraq and Syria: he withdrew from Iraq while funding 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq' in Syria, giving us ISIS.
Trump would not fund the Taliban in Pakistan while withdrawing from Afghanistan. Instead, Trump would withdraw from Afghanistan as Obama should have withdrawn from Iraq: Trump would not fund extremism next door.
But the Taliban would still resurge in Afghanistan after 3 - 5 years of troop withdrawal - not only so, but with a lack of places for Islamists to wage jihad under a Trump Administration (no longer able to in Iraq, Syria or Libya), foreign fighters would fight in Afghanistan instead. A resurgent Al-Qaeda is likely to fight on the Taliban's side in Afghanistan after America leaves.
But at the moment, radical Islam is widespread across Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Afghanistan. A reduction in terror safe havens would of course benefit the Middle-East and decrease terrorism in the region.
But in place of unstable Syria, Iraq and Libya would be a more unstable Yemen and Afghanistan, benefitting Al-Qaeda's vision immensely in the region.
Even worse is when Saudi Arabia implodes. When Saudi Arabia implodes, all other previously known conflicts in recent memory will pale in comparison. We will see sights of blood we have not seen since the days of World War 2. You think the current Iraqi-Syrian conflict is bad? The Saudi conflict will be much, much worse, and ISIS in Saudi Arabia will reach new pits of depravity yet unseen in our generation.
No comments:
Post a Comment