In his May 28 speech at West Point, President Obama emphasized the need of “thinking through the consequences” when engaging in acts of war. That commendable precept, however, doesn’t seem to have been adhered to in the strategy, unveiled in his prime time television address on Sept. 10, destined to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the self-branded “Islamic State” – formerly called ISIS.
There was indeed one critical question that should have been tackled, but wasn’t, in that address, namely: how to prevent Iran – and for that matter its Syrian ally, i.e. Assad’s regime – from taking advantage of the fight against ISIS.
This strategic conundrum can hardly be overestimated. ISIS being an enemy of the Iran-Syria axis, its weakening and eventual destruction may play into the hands of that axis unless a corresponding action is taken to preclude such eventuality.
True, President Obama announced that the U.S. would broaden its support to moderate Syrian rebels, a move that is expected to thwart the Assad regime. However, given the present balance of forces in the Syrian battlefield, it is unlikely that such support would be enough to prevent the Syrian regime from benefitting from the degrading of ISIS by the U.S.
Furthermore, nothing was said in President Obama’s television address about how he intends to proceed so as to avert pro-Iran Shia militias operating in Iraq to strengthen their grip on the Iraqi battlefield as the U.S. rolls over ISIS.
Still more worrisome, the possibility exists that Tehran mullahs seize the opportunity given by the current international focus on the ISIS threat and use it to surreptitiously advance in their hardly-hidden intention of weaponizing their nuclear program.
Conventional wisdom in the Washington establishment – which President Obama has been receptive and responsive to – tends to feed the mullahs’ expectations. It has indeed become fashionable to call for accommodating the interests of Iran so as to secure that country’s support in the fight against ISIS. Only scattered voices have warned against treating Iran as a partner in this endeavor.
And neither in his TV address nor elsewhere has President Obama clearly distanced himself from the current mood in the Washington establishment.
Be that as it may, to show leniency toward Iran’s regime would be both superfluous and misleading.
Superfluous, because Iran doesn’t need to be wooed to fight ISIS. This Sunni terrorist group represents an existential threat to Shia-ruled Iran. The mullahs, therefore, will do their utmost to combat ISIS anyway, with or without a rapprochement with the U.S.
Misleading, because the peril that ISIS represents shouldn’t divert attention away from the fact that the Iran-Syria axis isn’t any less dangerous for international peace and security.
