The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) released a video earlier this month showing a group of extremists on a slaughtering frenzy in eastern Syria. On the floor were several tied-up Syrian rebels, prepared for the knife. “The best thing about what you did is that you started with the Military Council, no question about this one,” says an Egyptian member in jest, referring to the killing of a fighter affiliated to the Free Syrian Army, deemed by Isil as apostates for working with the West. A Tunisian member then raises the head of his next victim and tells him: “Brother, you will be slaughtered now, brother.” The Egyptian then tells his colleagues that the videos should not be uploaded to the internet, to which the Tunisian replies: “Brother, I like these scenes. I like to watch them at night.”
The video received little international media attention, compared with last week’s gruesome murder of the American photojournalist James Foley. But it was widely circulated in the Middle East as the scene of Isil jihadists joking and laughing about their victims revealed a new level of barbarity to the group. It was not only cold-blooded but also sadistic. Those who have often justified the group’s barbarity as a necessary aspect of wars saw a different face.
The two murders, in a morbid way, united the East and West against Isil. In the region, the killing of Foley was widely condemned. Many took to social media to offer condolences to his family, mostly emphasising that people in the region, primarily from those people Isil claim to represent, have suffered from the group in the same way. Many, however, objected to the West’s readiness to act against Isil despite the fact that Isil have killed and slaughtered thousands of people, displaced whole villages and demolished places of worship.
Despite these actions, people have contrasted the West’s response to Foley’s killing by being ready to strike Isil’s bases with the lack of appropriate response to the havoc Isil systematically wreaked for months in the region against Syrians. They pointed out that some of the most atrocious killings happened as the US was preparing to intervene to save stranded Yazidis in northern Iraq.
But despite the ambivalence towards the West, people and politicians in the region have been unequivocal in their condemnation of Isil. Last Tuesday, Saudi Arabia’s grand mufti, Abdul Aziz Al Shaikh, described Isil as Islam’s “enemy number one” and called for “decisive” measures against clerics who lure young Saudis into extremism. Even radical clerics associated with Al Qaida have made unparalleled statements about the group. Abu Mariya Al Qah’tani, until recently the second top official at Jabhat Al Nusra in Syria, asked Al Qaida to “apologise and repent to God” for failing to speak out against the extremism of Isil’s predecessors in Iraq. The failure to condemn their acts in Iraq was, he said, a direct cause of the group’s extremism today. Atiyatulla Al Libbi, an Al Qaida ideologue from Libya, said that the indiscriminate killing of innocent Muslims did not represent jihadism.”
Politically, there seems to be a race throughout the region over who is better positioned to fight Isil. Riyadh pledged $100 million (Dh367 million) to the UN’s centre to combat terrorism to counter what officials called “an evil that affects us all”. Kuwait has taken steps to shut down some Islamic charities suspected of sending money to jihadists. Last Wednesday, Kuwaiti authorities arrested suspected jihadi financier Hajjaj Al Ajmi before releasing him a day later. Even the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), listed by the Americans as a terrorist organisation, has been pushing to reverse the designation since it has been fighting against Isil in Iraq and Syria. Iran and its allies in the region, on the other hand, have been more assertive in presenting themselves as a viable partner against Isil. The Syrian regime has uncharacteristically started bombing Isil bases in Syria, long spared the bombardment that affected other rebel factions and territories.
Reading the regional shifts in alliances might seem bewildering but the shifts themselves can be hugely significant. According to Arab and Kurdish sources, the crisis has led to closer links between Tehran and the president of the Iraqi Kurdish region, Masoud Barzani. A Kurdish source told me the reason for these improved ties is Iran’s quick move to assist the Kurds in their fight against Isil, unlike Arab allies who merely provided humanitarian assistance.
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, in an interview with the Lebanese newspaper Al Akhbar, used the opportunity to reiterate two messages he has made in the past. The first is that without his party’s involvement in Syria, extremists would have marched into Lebanon. The second is to present his party, along with its patrons and allies, as a regional force against takfirism, a term that usually refers to radical Sunnis. In the wake of its military involvement alongside the Syrian regime to repress a popular uprising, Hezbollah’s decade-long perception in the region as a resistance force started to unravel and its sectarian position prevailed in people’s minds.
But the party quickly adopted a new rhetoric; anti-takfirism ensures that Hezbollah wins influence not only among minorities but also from moderate Sunnis who equally fear the rise of groups such as Isil. This strategy is slowly coming to fruition.
The predominance of Isil as a regional concern for most forces has also led to a slight, yet important, regional realignment, with Qatar and Turkey moving closer to the Saudi position of prioritising the fight against extremism, particularly in Syria. The Saudi position itself is edging closer to the Iranian one, of not seeking the downfall of the Bashar Al Assad regime at least, not now.
This past week was one of drawing parallels. Saudi Arabia’s top cleric condemned Isil’s behaviour, but authorities there have beheaded at least 19 convicts since August 4. Many of those who condemned the summary execution of Isil rivals celebrated Hamas’s execution of 18 suspected informants. While the world’s attention was focused on Isil, a like-minded Shiite militia attacked a Sunni mosque in the Iraqi province of Diyala on Friday, killing nearly 70 worshippers. This militia is linked to the government and has fought alongside the security forces against Isil.
The American defence secretary, Chuck Hagel, warned last Thursday that Isil is “beyond anything that we’ve seen before”. And yet the causes that led to the rise of Isil are all too familiar. And the Americans have contributed their share to these causes.
Isil thrives on the inconsistencies and injustices that plague the region. A response to Isil cannot involve, for example, working with a government-linked militia that indiscriminately kills worshippers, while rhetorically recognising that a credible and viable political process is necessary for Iraq. Nor does it involve flirting with the Al Assad regime to fight Isil after it killed or caused the death of close to 200,000 people. The battle against Isil, which itself came on the heels of failure to address the root causes of Al Qaida before it, has to be far-reaching and consistent. Otherwise, the defeat of Isil will only give way to an even more extreme and formidable force.
— Guardian News & Media Ltd
Hassan Hassan is an analyst at the Delma Institute, a research centre in Abu Dhabi.
