Syria

Turkey
 by Suleyman Ozeren

Turkey’s Military Incursion into Northeastern Syria Poses Many Risks to Regional Stability

President Trump’s decision to outsource the mission to fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to Turkey caught many observers off guard. In fact, allowing the Turkish military to carry out a military incursion in northeastern Syria has faced strong reactions in Washington D.C. and around the world. President Trump, who saw little justification in keeping the United States’ military in Syria after his declaration of victory against ISIL, gave a green light to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to realize its long-awaited ‘safe zone’ in the area.

Having two major goals, Turkey aims to prevent the Kurds — Democratic Union Party (PYD) and the People’s Protection Units (YPG) — from having autonomy in Syria and resettle 1-2 million refugees in the safe zone. This is an especially complex political situation because Ankara considers the YPG as a terrorist organization under the guidance of the PKK, a far-left political entity with a contentious reputation internationally.

The initial plan is to establish a safe zone that will be 30 km (18 miles) and a length of 480 km (298 miles) that will allow resettlement of up to 2 million Syrians refugees who have been in Turkey. But according to Erdogan, the safe zone could be extended to Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor which could host the Syrian refugees in Europe as well.

As ambitious as it sounds, the plan has received little support from any country, including the United States, European Union (EU) member states, and several Middle Eastern countries. In the United States, except for Trump’s consent, the entire US Congress and most of the administration oppose the incursion.

Erdogan is attempting to balance numerous diplomatic interests in the Syrian conflict. For example, he proposes to the United States that Turkey could claim leadership of fight against ISIL while offering the Europeans a path to ease their burden of hosting refugees. He also proposed building hundreds of thousands of homes for the refugees in the safe zone which could boost the Turkish economy. So, it was supposed to be a ‘win-win’ for everyone.

The military incursion embodies several risks. For example, fighting between the Turkish military and the Kurds in Syria could create more refugees and internally displaced persons (IDP) in northeastern Syria. Particularly if the incursion will be extended and prolonged, this will force thousands of people to leave their homes which could mean that Iraq, Turkey, and eventually Europe could see another influx of refugees. Even more concerning is the idea that the safe zone would be used for resettlement of up to three million refugees. While there are Arab-majority areas in northern Syria, resettling Arab refugees in the area could lead other ethnic tensions and possible conflict between Arabs and Kurds.

Second, the Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK) could carry out attacks in Turkey which could create another chaotic situation. While PKK has allocated several of its militants in the Syrian conflict, with sensational attacks, PKK could ignite a nationalist backfire against the Kurds given the emotional and heated psychological climate in the country. If the incursion leads to even a small-scale uprising in Turkey, the PKK would engage in opportunistic attacks. If the conflict between Turkey and the Kurds endures, Kurds in other countries, including Iran and Iraq, could rally around the Syrian Kurds. Contrary to what Erdogan and his government are trying to do, the operation could consolidate the Kurds in such a way that it could have several consequences for Turkey.

Fourth, feeling betrayed by the United States, the PYD would reach out to Damascus to seek closer relationship with Russia and the Assad regime which also would strengthen the Iranian influence over the Syrian Kurds. Syrian Kurds would rather have the Assad regime forces patrolling the Turkey-Syria border in the northern Syria than the Turkish military and Turkey-backed forces.

For Russia, the Turkish military incursion presents new opportunities. According to Moscow, while Turkey has a right to address its security concerns, it also should respect to the territorial integrity of Syria. In Russia’s view, Turkish military incursion can be tolerated as long as the Turkish military presence will not be prolonged. In other words, Russia sees Turkey’s move as an opportunity.

On the one hand, Turkey’s unilateral action contradicts with Moscow’s support for the territorial integrity of Syria and upsets the regime in Damascus. On the other hand, Russia sees the incursion as another opportunity to weaken the Western Alliances in which Turkey had been an important actor. Erdogan’s recent foreign policy decisions since the July 15, 2016 coup attempt have favored Russia in that Turkey aligned with Russia on many issues, including the Astana process; a series of initiatives and plans aimed to end the Syrian civil war.

Iran could benefit from the United States’ decision to pull out of critical areas in northeastern Syria too. This action provides Tehran with significant political capital to expand and deepen its area of influence in the entire Middle East.

Fifth, the region could witness another resurgence of ISIL. Recent experience in the region demonstrated that whenever there is ethnic and religious tension or a conflict, ISIL benefited from it. More importantly, Turkey’s record on fighting against ISIL is far from encouraging. Throughout the Syrian conflict, Ankara had turned a blind eye to the foreign terrorist fighters who have used Turkey as a transit country. Grave allegations that the Turkish government has provided extremist groups with weapons and other ammunitions discourage any expectations about the capability and willingness of the government to handle the ISIL threat in the region properly.

While in the short term the military incursion is helping Erdogan to consolidate popular support in Turkey, in the long term it could weaken his position both domestically and internationally. Already facing a lot of criticism and potential sanctions by the United States, if Erdogan cannot deliver the intended outcome of the operation, the military incursion could be very costly for him and Turkey.

Editor’s Note: Suleyman Ozeren, the Director of the Middle East and North Africa Counterterrorism program at Rise to Peace, provides comprehensive analysis of the many repercussions of the ongoing Turkish military operation in northeastern Syria. It is especially important to consider conditions on the ground and the consequences faced by average civilians in the wake of recent developments. Shifts in the regional balance of power in the Middle East are connected to the quality of life for many people, therefore this topic must be seriously discussed.

Suleyman Ozeren, Ph.D. is the Director of the Middle East and North Africa Counterterrorism program at Rise to Peace, He is also an Adjunct Faculty and a research scholar at the at George Mason University. Follow him on twitter at @docsozeren

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Nick Webb

The Hezbollah Dilemma

On March 22, American Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Lebanon to convince countries in the region to join the United State with enacting harsh sanctions against Iran. The US believes that Iran is funding terrorist organizations around the world and believes it must be stopped.

Under the Trump administration, the US has been hard against Iran by increasing sanctions and pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal. Pompeo discussed Hezbollah with the Lebanese government. According to Pompeo, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and will start wars, end democracy in Lebanon, and allow Iran to rule it.

Lebanon’s President Michel Aoun and Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri understand the United States’ perspective with the issue of Hezbollah, but they view Hezbollah as a legitimate party organization, not terrorists.

Hezbollah has 70 of the 128 seats in the Lebanese Parliament and has gained momentum in recent years. However, the US continues to sanction them and Iran. President Aoun has said that even though these sanctions target Hezbollah, Lebanon suffers as well. Pompeo says that if the Lebanese government helps him, the US will help Lebanon.

The issue Lebanon faces is quite difficult because Hezbollah is an important actor since the Lebanese Civil War. Their military power is also important because they help defend Lebanon against its enemies, such as Israel.

Lebanon does not want to cut ties with the US but they cannot afford to lose an important military and political actor. But Hezbollah is not just invested into Lebanon, they also have a presence in Syria and support Al-Assad militarily. This is also a conflict of interest for the United States.

In previous administrations, they have all condemned Hezbollah and deemed them to be a terrorist group, but no other president has been so severe against the group and Iran than Trump.

This dilemma has been shrugged off year after year by both the Americans and the Lebanese, but it could change today. The economy of Lebanon could suffer under the sanctions posed on Hezbollah; thus, forcing the Lebanese to change their political affiliations with the group.

The country has not been this stable in decades. Lebanon is open for commerce, tourism, and development. They do not want Hezbollah to be in the way of being more connected with the rest of the world.

Nick Webb is the Research Fellow at Rise to Peace.

 

in Asia / MENA / Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments
 by Nick Webb

Iraq in Rubble after ISIL

At the beginning of 2019, the size of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has been reduced greatly by a coalition including the United States. Unfortunately, people return home to discover their towns in rubble.

The fight has been going on for over four and a half years yet ISIL has been forced to retreat to a small area in Eastern Syria called Marashida. At the height of ISIL’s power, they had controlled 10 million people.

This contributed to the massive refugee crisis out of Syria and Iraq.

Buildings are destroyed, streets are gone, and there are few public services  There are only bullet holes, twisted shrapnel, and dust. Yet despite their difficulties, the Iraqi government nor any other Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) is supporting them.

There are no hospitals either, or any sort of aid. They have no other choice but to rebuild alone. Civilians are exhausted from movement, fear, and the thought of uncertainty.

They just want a place they can have a healthy and safe life.

Yet some are worried because of President Trump’s announcement to withdraw troops from Syria. He claims that ISIL is destroyed yet that is incorrect.

The villagers are worried that ISIL will return to oppress them once the United States leaves. This will not only create havoc for the population, but ISIL could start to recruit again, thus growing in numbers and territory.

American military leaders do not know when they should withdraw from Syria, even though the president has made announcements about.  This uncertainty creates instability all over the world. Russia is going to involve themselves more in Syria, NATO is unsure on how to react.

President Trump might not follow through with this move. If he does pull out, it would be best if NATO and other European Union (EU) countries stepped in to make sure that the terrorists are defeated and that human rights and peace are achieved at the end of the conflict.

Having Russia being the only other party involved in Syria would be dangerous for the global order and regional order in the Middle East. It is against US and EU interests and would be detrimental on the process of having freedoms in the Middle East post-conflict.

The returning of refugees and civilians back to their hometowns in Syria have been dramatic due to the destruction of their schools, hospitals, and homes.

Many are hopeful for the future but struggle to rebuild because they are alone on this venture.  The uncertainty created by the US for proposing a pull out of military forces in Syria create worries for the people living there and that this will create the growth and spread of ISIL again.

It is imperative to have the EU and NATO to maintain strong even if the US pulls out to be a voice of freedom and human rights.

 

 

Nick Webb is the Research Fellow at Rise to Peace.

in Asia / MENA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by John Wilson

The Mysterious Case of Mohamad Jamal Khweis

Mohamad Jamal Khweis while in Kurdish custody. Image Credit: Associated Press.

Few in Alexandria, Virginia, would have suspected that the man driving a bus for the elderly would travel halfway across the globe to join the Islamic State (IS) and wage violent jihad. But this is the case of Mohamad Jamal Khweis, who went by the kunya Abu Omar al-Amriki while living in the self-declared caliphate. While the story of Khweis can be compared in some ways to others, not much is known about the actual path of radicalization he took in the lead-up to joining the IS. Khweis consistently lied and changed his story throughout his capture, interrogation, and trial, forcing officials to play a guessing game. What is known about Khweis’ case is analyzed here.

Khweis grew up in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., graduating from Edison High School in Fairfax County in 2007. As the child of two Muslim immigrants from the Middle East, Khweis grew up attending mosque. However, according to his parents, he was not particularly religious growing up. After high school, Khweis got a job as a bus driver for the elderly and disabled. He drank and smoked cigarettes, not activities associated with a devout extremist.

However, something happened between 2007 and 2015. Khweis lied to family and friends in late 2015, a month after the IS attacks in Paris, when he began scheduling travel to Europe. In mid-December Khweis travelled to London before making several stops across Europe en route to Turkey. In Turkey, scheduled contact was made with an IS facilitator who directed him, along with several French would-be jihadists, across the Turkish border and into Syria.

Upon arrival in Raqqa, which was under IS control at the time, Khweis underwent religious training and began work doing miscellaneous household tasks for caliphate fighters. According to documents discovered by forces combating the IS, during this time, Khweis indicated that he was willing to become a martyr by utilizing himself as a suicide bomber for the caliphate.

After months of cooking, cleaning, and taking out the garbage, Khweis grew increasingly frustrated by his lack of military training. Throughout his time in the caliphate, Khweis was also routinely ill from consuming poor-quality drinking water. These factors, and possibly more, combined to make his frustrations unbearable. When Khweis was relocated to IS controlled territory in Tal Afar, Iraq, he made an “escape.”

Kurdish Peshmerga forces discovered Khweis walking alone, and after it was confirmed that he was not a suicide bomber, he was taken into custody. When Khweis was captured he carried several hundred dollars in Iraqi and Turkish currencies, three cell phones, and his Virginia driver’s license. At first, Khweis stated to his captors that he had been deceived by a female he met in Turkey into coming into Syria and essentially becoming a slave; however, this story quickly fell apart. Peshmerga forces were able to contact American authorities to inform them of Khweis’ presence, and he was quickly transferred to American custody. In American custody, Khweis changed his story over 15 times between intelligence interviews and criminal investigation interviews.

Even so, authorities obtained enough information to levy criminal charges. Lawyers representing Khweis argue that this was unfair, and that Khweis gave false information to investigators out of desperation to return to the United States. However, many indicators disprove this- including signs of remaining loyalties, such as Khweis’ refusal to identify or provide any information on Americans he knew who had also joined the IS. Throughout his criminal trial, Khweis again changed his story multiple times, at times even indicating that his time in the caliphate was a mistake made after a night partying in Turkey.

Extremist propaganda was discovered on Khweis’ cell phones after capture, but once again eluding to his own radicalization, Khweis stated that the propaganda was only on his devices because he was conducting research into life in Syria. It is unclear if he was radicalized by online propaganda like so many others. There has not been any mention of other radicalized individuals whom Khweis may have been in contact with in the United States. Ultimately, there is no strong evidence to suggest how Khweis fell towards extremist ideology.

Although a clear path towards radicalization cannot be observed due to Khweis’ lack of cooperation, some comparisons can be made to other cases of radicalization. First, Khweis was the child of Muslim immigrants, growing up in the United States in the wake of 9/11. This time challenged many young Muslims, leading many to seek answers about their identities. It was also a time which caused notable marginalization, or at the very least perceived marginalization, of Muslim communities in the United States.

Circumstantial evidence would suggest that Khweis was vulnerable to radicalization due to his perceived marginalized position in American society. As a child of Muslim immigrants in post-9/11 America, Khweis certainly grew up with various forces pressuring him and challenging his identity. While not much more can be properly guessed about what exactly occurred along Khweis’ journey, his uncooperative nature and refusal to provide information about other American jihadists belies the fact that he likely remains radicalized. Fortunately, his 20-year sentence for providing material support to the IS will provide critical time that may lead to more cooperation and insight into his beliefs and radicalization process.

 

John Patrick Wilson is a Law Enforcement Professional and Research Fellow for Rise to Peace.

in Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments
 by Caleb Septoff

ISIS Threat

Since ISIS’, or Daesh’s, ascension to power, following the chaos of the Syrian uprisings in 2011, the world has watched as these Islamists used increasingly brutal tactics to secure huge swaths of land in both Syria and Iraq. They targeted fragile, war-torn countries with low state capacity and worked to push their own agenda. The religious fundamentalists quickly gained international fame as they exploited the realm of social media to a new level, posting videos and creating multiple accounts on different platforms to attract followers from across the globe. However, the magnitude of their global attention eventually worked against the organization as the United States and other nations showed support and entered Syria for the sole purpose of extinguishing ISIS.

Over 30,000 airstrikes later and aggressive military policies by the United States, backed by around sixty-eight other countries, ISIS has lost most of its territory it formerly held in Iraq and Syria. Despite this, the group has managed to keep a small piece of land near the Syrian-Iraqi border for more than a year now. The plot of land is tucked around a quaint Syrian town known as Hajin in the Deir al-Zour province. Occasionally, militants still attempt to stage an attack outside of the small parcel of land they control, but even these attacks appear feeble and unorganized, like the last breath before they cease to exist any longer, unlike their prior attacks. Especially the attacks that took Europe by surprise in 2014 and 2015. However, it has been more than four years since Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Daesh, declared the caliphate and those attacks seem to be a distant memory to many. Today it appears to most of the world that ISIS is not only no longer a threat but has been eradicated from existence.

Maxwell B. Markusen, associate fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in D.C., spoke to the New York Timesand stated that this rhetoric commonly being used is destructive as it insinuates that ISIS is no longer a threat. Although the area they control has seriously diminished, this is not the case. ISIS’ lightning fast rise to the forefront of the world’s most feared organizations is mainly the result of the propaganda and recruitment arm that remains active. ISIS is currently broadcasting their videos and messages at a similar pace as they were when at the height of their power. There were more attacks in 2017 than in 2016 and although the numbers of successful attacks have gone down significantly, attempted attacks continue at a pace similar to that in 2015. Although their territory has diminished it is thought that they still retain around 30,000 members in total throughout Syria and Iraq, though these numbers cannot be confirmed. The American led fight to take Hajin, the last place ISIS officially operates from, is proving harder than anticipated, even with the help of the Syrian Democratic Forces. ISIS is pushed back against a corner and has no problem fighting like there is nothing to lose. They have been reported to use the civilians which has only slowed fighting further.

Recently, President Donald Trump tweeted a video statement where he declared, “we have beaten them, and we have beaten them badly. It’s time to bring our troops home…We won.” While many families will be rejoicing as their sons and daughters are sent home, one must wonder if pulling the estimated two thousand American troops out of Syria is the correct move. Not only is ISIS’ presence and influence still widely felt, it leaves only Russia, Iran and Hezbollah as the major players in the geopolitical center of the Middle East. Bordering Syria are five of the U.S. allies: Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, and Lebanon. None of these allies will appreciate the abrupt removal by the U.S. Once the U.S. leaves they give up their position of diplomatic leverage and forfeit it to the aforementioned countries still involved. The announcement came as a surprise, but will no doubt be greeted warmly by both Russia and Bashar al-Assad, president of Syria. Russia has long fought for sole influence over Syria and has long desired it as a military base for their naval and air forces. The Trump administrations own team seems to have been taken by surprise as well. Brett McGurk, the State Department’s Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, said at a briefingon December 11th, “if we’ve learned one thing over the years, enduring defeat of a group like this means you can’t just defeat their physical space and then leave. You have to make sure the internal security forces are in place to ensure that those gains, security gains, are enduring.”

Haphazardly pulling troops out may seem like a good move after years of being stationed in a war zone, but McGurk is accurate in his assessment. The U.S. has on more than one occasion, think Afghanistan and Iraq, acted against unfit regimes or terrorist organizations and then quickly left soon after the fighting slowed. ISIS is not obliterated; they still exist and are actively recruiting new followers. Leaving a country without infrastructure or institutions to maintain peace will only result in the resurfacing of the movement. The age old saying, ‘history repeats itself’ will ring true if the U.S. chooses not to learn from its past. In this situation, the U.S. should not pull out all troops and leave the region void of its influence. Instead, the U.S. should focus on rebuilding what they have aided in destroying and use their influence to not only keep ISIS at bay but also to work with other nations, including Syria to rebuild the country and its institutions. This in the long run will leave less space for terrorists’ organizations such as ISIS to flourish as many of the capabilities to protect against extremism are found within strong infrastructure and institutions.

in MENA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments