After Iraq and Syria, where will terrorism rise next?

During the early years of the Syrian civil war, the US largely ignored the high risk the Syrian conflict had of spilling into Iraq. Now that both Iraq and Syria are seeing a recession in violence, high risks are increasing elsewhere, again largely ignored by the US.

One such high risk area is Yemen. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula continues to benefit enormously from the Yemen war waged by Saudi Arabia. As ISIS grew out of the chaos of the Iraq War and matured in the furnace of the Syrian Civil War, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is the only benefactor of the Saudi air war in Yemen.

Libya is another high risk area. For jihadist groups, Libya was always a battle which could be fought later. After the overthrow of Moammar Al-Qaddafi, many of the weapons held by the regime were sent across the Mediterranean through Turkey into Syria to further arm the rebels. Fighters who had previously fought for the overthrow of the regime in Libya turned to fight for another: Assad's regime in Syria.

Now, having suffered a serious setback in Syria - which, with the entry of Turkey into Idlib, will only get worse - it would be time for jihadist minds to again return to Libya from Syria, to make sure the Arab Islamist Revolution still survives in one country.

However, efforts have been made to make sure that several areas will not return to instability and chaos as before. President Trump, in outlining his Afghanistan policy, has assured his allies that the US will not be withdrawing from Afghanistan, unlike President Obama in Iraq, and Trump will in fact be pushing for true and lasting victory in Afghanistan over Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

President Trump has also maintained that a residual force will be left behind in Iraq after ISIS is defeated, to make sure that ISIS will be unable to return to Iraq as strongly as it did in 2014. In addition, President Trump has prioritized peace in Syria over the removal of Bashar Al-Assad, and has prioritized peace in Syria over the complaints of US allies such as Israel. It is also important to note that after the destruction of ISIS, the US intends on withdrawing from Syria.

While these US policies regarding Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria are sound, President Trump's own support for the Saudi war on Yemen makes him complicit in the fueling of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Libya, on the other hand, is the failure of the Obama Administration and Europe: Obama for overthrowing Qaddafi and Europe for not looking after Libya in its aftermath.

While violence is set to increase in Libya and Yemen in the next year, in the next 5 - 10 years, violence is set to increase in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Both Libya and Yemen are likely to fall into Russia's orbit, as President Trump intends to stay focused on his America First agenda and not get tangled in additional Middle-East quagmires.

Regarding Saudi Arabia, it may even be that the US will be so sick of intervention that, with Russia in control of Syria, Libya and Yemen, and with the US prioritizing stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Trump Administration will call on other world powers - such as the EU, Egypt and Jordan - to intervene on behalf of Saudi Arabia.

In the mean time, much scrutiny will be placed on both the Trump and Obama Administrations for the failures of stopping terrorism from spreading into Libya and Yemen at an accelerated rate.

Key points from Trump's Afghan War speech

In a recent speech Trump outlined his Administration's approach to Afghanistan. It departs from Obama's approach in several key ways which will be detailed in this article.


1) President Trump fights in Afghanistan to win. Obama's approach was to not lose the war in Afghanistan. His desire was for a withdrawal and a pullout, but signalling this to the American public also signaled this to the Afghan government and, crucially, to the Taliban. The Afghan government was unwilling to fight hard for their country so long as US support was not guaranteed, and the Taliban was able to wait out until the end of Obama's timeline before increasing their own insurgency.

Trump does not deal in such notions. His desire is for no timelines to be published and no strategies to be made known to the American people, except for the eradication of Al-Qaeda and ISIS from the region. Such a task, though daunting, is not impossible with a US apparatus willing to fight for victory.

2) US stance on Pakistan and India has changed. President Trump's change in approach to Pakistan is long overdue. They have long played a double game with the US - on the one hand, supporting the Afghan government and US initiative in the region; on the other hand, supporting the Taliban and giving them and other terrorist groups safe havens. Trump's strategy is to isolate Pakistan and hold their feet to the fire, through economic sanctions and gaining more support from India.

India has strategic objectives in Afghanistan. Stability in the region greatly eases the burden on India, but also it is a chance to defeat Pakistan by proxy. India, like the United States, benefits from the strengthening of the Afghan government and defeating the Taliban. An increased role for India is more likely to result in peace for Afghanistan.

3) Nation-building in Afghanistan is over. President Trump has long maintained that his foreign policy objectives are not focused on recreating the US in other countries. This is certainly a breath of fresh air given Obama's unyielding support for the Arab Spring and for democracy in Afghanistan. It means that President Trump will be less worried about corruption, democracy and "human rights" in Afghanistan, on the condition that counter-terrorism objectives continue to be reached.

In this is the realization that strengthening democracy in a country like Afghanistan may result in losing the war against terrorism, but letting democracy fail and turning a blind eye to some forms of corruption while strengthening counter-terrorism services and military may provide a more lasting peace. The US military will not be responsible for building democracy in Afghanistan; in Trump's words, they are in Afghanistan to kill terrorists.

4) The US military has been unleashed. Gone are restraints and micromanagement from the White House during the Obama years. President Trump is going to unleash the US military to let them achieve peace in Afghanistan as they are able. They will be unhindered in targeting Taliban, ISIS and Al-Qaeda members and will serve in a largely advisory role to the Afghan forces, while likely to up the air campaign against the Taliban.


Whether or not President Trump's strategy will produce victory in Afghanistan is unclear. What is clear, however, is that at the very least, the Taliban are about to receive a thrashing long overdue.

As Iraq, Syria defeat ISIS, Al-Qaeda looms large

Mosul has been recaptured by the Iraqi Army from ISIS. ISIS-held Raqqa is currently besieged from all sides by the Syrian Kurds. And the Syrian Arab Army, bolstered by de-escalation zones in the west of the country, has massed its troops in the east, scoring victory after victory against ISIS in Syria.

While things are currently looking up for Syria and Iraq, Al-Qaeda still maintains its presence in Afghanistan. A resurgent Taliban is winning the war against the government led by Ashraf Ghani and, contrary to popular belief, the Taliban maintains its close relationship with Al-Qaeda, as the leader of Al-Qaeda still pledges allegiance to the leader of the Taliban:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2016/06/ayman-al-zawahiri-swears-allegiance-to-the-talibans-new-leader.php

This exposes fatal flaws in the previous President Obama's strategy: killing Bin Laden did not stop Al-Qaeda from growing. Announcing troop surges and troop withdrawals in Afghanistan did not work. Negotiating with the Taliban was as impractical as negotiating with Al-Qaeda. And, finally, focusing on degrading, defeating and destroying ISIS has not stopped a resurgent Al-Qaeda from taking the limelight back.

Though ISIS is a long-term threat which is highly likely to return, Al-Qaeda is the more immediate threat, and the threat has grown. Not only has the Taliban filled the vacuum left by Obama in Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has become a potent threat taking advantage of the Saudi war on Yemen. Al-Qaeda also has a strong presence in Libya and, finally, those "moderate rebels" in Syria are all allied with Al-Qaeda.

While President Trump can be blamed for Al-Qaeda's presence in Yemen, President Obama is to blame for the Al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan, Syria and Libya. Libyan President Moammar Al-Qaddafi was overthrown in 2011, creating a vacuum in Libya, and Syrian rebels were supported by the US government from 2013 until this year. Ironically, it has been Russia who has been moving to quell the Al-Qaeda threat in Syria and Libya and, unlike President Obama, has had more success in rooting them out.

Afghanistan however falls to US President Donald Trump. Over the past 8 months there has been much debating in the White House about the way forward in Afghanistan, and President Trump has grown increasingly frustrated with US generals suggesting the way forward is to continue the same as before. President Trump has been exploring a wide range of options, including withdrawal and handing Afghanistan to private contractors, but the most enticing idea yet has been giving the US and Afghan troops a new goal: minerals.

Afghanistan's minerals make up a large revenue for the Taliban, and depriving the Taliban of this revenue would weaken their influence in the country considerably. Minerals in the government's hands would help Afghanistan stand on its own two feet and help win rogue Afghan tribes back to the government. It would also win him support back home for continuing the war.

But Afghanistan is not the only country from which Trump will face his counter-terrorism test: Yemen is the other. Trump has strengthened US support in the Saudi war against Yemen and this has resulted in an increase in Al-Qaeda's presence there. The rise of Al-Qaeda in Yemen (commonly known as Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) is not dependent on territory controlled, as ISIS is; rather it is dependent on tribes which are loyal to and grateful for Al-Qaeda's presence in the region. And there are many such tribes in Yemen.

Even should Trump create a cohesive strategy to root out the Taliban from Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda will become even more powerful and resurgent in Yemen. This will likely strain US-Saudi relations and allow Russia a hand in solving yet another US-created quagmire.

The Al-Qaeda threat looms large, too large for the US public to bear any longer.

Why ISIS will not return to Al-Qaeda

With the destruction of ISIS' territory, some pundits believe the group will return to Al-Qaeda. This is highly unlikely, because Abu Musab Az-Zarqawi's vision differed considerably from Bin Laden's.

ISIS was born out of the chaos of the Iraq War. Abu Musab Az-Zarqawi, the founder of ISIS under a different name, believed in the deliberate targeting of Shi'ite Muslims and other non-Sunnis to awaken the Sunni Muslim giant - a giant which stretches across every Muslim country in the globe except Iraq and Iran. Al-Qaeda, by contrast, has avoided inflaming sectarian hatred and instead wishes to bankrupt the 'far' enemies of Islam - such as the US and Russia - destroy Israel and slowly return the Muslim world to a state in which a Caliph might rule.

According to Michael Ware - a journalist who lived in Iraq after the war began - Zarqawi's group only pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda out of necessity and not because it aspired to its ideology. With ISIS having made its mark across Syria, Iraq and the globe; having declared the global Caliphate, it would completely undermine the ISIS vision of leading the global jihad to return to Al-Qaeda, and that even with the destruction of all ISIS territory.

More likely is that ISIS will return as an insurgency group in Iraq with the aim of destabilizing the Arabian Gulf, to provoke the last war between 'Rome' (that is, the United States) and the Islamic State. And in this regard, ISIS is likely to succeed where Al-Qaeda cannot, because Saudi Arabia and ISIS are more alike than either of them are to Al-Qaeda.

Needless to say, ISIS will not return to Al-Qaeda. But both will remain considerable threats to any country wishing to deal with the Middle-East.

What if ISIS takes over Saudi Arabia? Detailed analysis.

With the rise of Mohammed Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, the likelihood of either civil war or an outright takeover of the conservative kingdom by ISIS has increased exponentially. This has only been brought further to likelihood by Iranian dominance in Iraq and Syria.

The important question is this: what if ISIS takes over Saudi Arabia? What would happen to the Middle-East and global politics?

1) US' hands would be tied. With pressure mounting on the current Trump Administration to deliver its promise of "America First," with military commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan remaining for the foreseeable future, with the threat of North Korea, there would little the US could do about an ISIS takeover of Saudi Arabia.

US strategy in such circumstance would be to use other Sunni proxies, such as the Jordanian and Egyptian armies, to wrest back control of Saudi Arabia from ISIS.

2) Iraq would be given Saudi's status of most important non-Israeli ally. With the destruction of the Saudi kingdom, the US would be forced to look elsewhere for its top non-Israeli ally in the Middle-East. Iraq would be the obvious choice for several reasons:

First, Iraq has oil, and oil comparable to Saudi oil. Second, it would be unlikely that the US would choose Iran as its top ally, due to its anti-Israeli rhetoric, and it would be less costly politically to use Iraq as the mediator between itself and Iran. Third, Iraq is the vulnerable corridor through which ISIS could expand its territory into the rest of the Middle-East, so it is in American interest to secure it. Fourth, Iraq and US already have better relations than the US has with several neighboring countries.

3) More Muslim countries would be less hesitant to ally or increase relations with Israel. Egyptian and Jordanian relations with Israel are already strong, but in such circumstances these relations would only become stronger.

From Iran and its allies, Iraq is the most likely country to increase relations with Israel substantially, and this due to the Iraqi-US alliance. This would parallel the current US-Israeli-Saudi relations of today, with Iraq instead of Saudi. Even the more anti-Israel states and groups from Iran's side, like Syria, Palestine and Hezbollah, would be forced to some level of rapprochement with Israel to counter the ISIS threat in the Gulf.

4) Other Gulf kingdoms would fall. With Saudi Arabia engulfed by ISIS, the other Gulf kingdoms would be vulnerable to ISIS takeover. Among these include Kuwait, Bahran, UAE and Qatar.

Kuwait and Bahrain are the most vulnerable because they themselves have larger Shi'ite populations. Should Shi'ite populations rise up, ISIS would correspondingly find more sympathy in each country. Qatar and UAE are vulnerable, but less so, as Qatar is protected by Turkey, and the UAE would be protected by Egypt, which helped fund Sisi's ascent to power.

Even so, Bahrain becoming the capital of the new ISIS Caliphate is a frightening possibility.

5) Oman and Yemen would likely survive. While the fate of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE is questionable, Oman and Yemen are more likely to survive an ISIS takeover of Saudi Arabia.

Why? A large reason is Russia. Russia has been eyeing a foothold in Yemen on the side of the Houthis for some time now. With ISIS warring against the Houthis in this scenario, Russia would be legitimized in establishing a no-fly-zone in Yemen and driving ISIS away. The Houthis would then easily take control of the remainder of Yemen as a buffer against ISIS-controlled territory to the north.

With regards to Oman, Oman has endured much peace in the region, and this can be traced back to the main expression of Islam in Oman: Ibadiya. Ibadiya is less focused on the physical jihad than its Sunni and Shi'ite counterparts, and instead cracks down hard on fitna, which is division or dissent. With a Houthi-controlled Yemen to its west and Iran just across the sea, Oman would survive and become an important partner for the west against ISIS.

6) Shi'ites would be killed or driven out. This is one of the more inhuman aspects of an ISIS takeover of Saudi Arabia: Shi'ites would be systematically targeted for extinction. Cities like Qatif and Damam would be levelled to the ground as ISIS would seek Shi'ite genocide. Many would flee to Kuwait and Bahrain, which would only bring ISIS to follow them.

For Gulf monarchies, this would be seen as a convenient way of removing Iran's foothold from the Arabian Gulf without directly engaging in brutal killings. However, the likelihood of their own demise would only increase with letting ISIS ethnically cleanse the Arabian Gulf of the Shi'ites.

Shi'ites surviving the genocide would likely relocate to Iran, Iraq or Syria. Thus the Sunni-Shi'ite balance of the region would be more evenly restored to how it was before the Iraq War.

7) Enormous instability would follow. The global instability that would follow is important to recognize. Not only would oil prices skyrocket; not only would Iran, Iraq, Russia and China get enormously wealthy, but many Muslims would fight jihad either for or against ISIS in the Arabian Peninsula. Millions would fight and millions would die there for or against ISIS.

More concerning for counter-terrorism is that, with ISIS' control of Mecca and Medina, their authority on Islam would solidify, and Muslims would pledge allegiance to ISIS all across the Muslim world, forcing their governments to fight and defeat them in many different countries.

8) The Saudi royal family might return. The Saudi royal family has survived attempted destruction before. When the Arabs revolted against the Ottoman Empire with help from Saud and Ibn Abdul Wahhab, the Saudis were crushed by the Ottomans, but they returned two centuries later in the kingdom we know today. With the Sauds being an enormously wealthy family, many would find shelter in the West, and could perhaps insight rebellion against ISIS once excitement for the reestablishment of the Caliphate has waned and the horrors of ISIS are revealed.



Much must be said about the foolishness of American foreign policy in the Middle-East. This possibility - that ISIS would take over Saudi Arabia - is unavoidable, because Mohammed Bin Salman serves as the best poster boy for ISIS recruitment in the Arabian Gulf.

Did Russia kill Baghdadi?

Russia claimed to kill Baghdadi in an airstrike several weeks ago. Should the information prove to be true, then this would be an enormous boost for the Russian air campaign in Syria. It would also strengthen the Syrian, Russian and Iranian hand in the Astana and Geneva talks for the conclusion of the Syrian civil war.

While the death of Baghdadi would certainly be a victory in the war on terror, it would not mean the end of ISIS, even should all territory in Iraq and Syria be regained. One only has to look back to how the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula have risen to prominence after the death of Bin Laden to see that killing the leader of a terror organisation does not guarantee its destruction.

Further, examples should be noted from ISIS' own history. After the death of Abu Musab Az-Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq from 1999 - 2006, the most bitter fighting was initiated by then AQI against the US-backed Iraqi forces. After the death of Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi in 2010, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, (ISI was AQI with an updated name) Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi took control. He revolutionized ISI by making the most of the Syrian Civil War to transform the group into ISIS. Today, the group goes by the name "Islamic State" and has stolen the limelight from Al-Qaeda.

While counter-terrorism experts say that one of Baghdadi's two deputies will take control of ISIS after the death of Baghdadi, there is a good reason to question this. Firstly, Baghdadi's two deputies are officers from the Saddam Hussein regime and have no religious authority in and of themselves. The next stage in ISIS' transformation is a critical lifeline: ISIS will transform from a Caliphate Army across Syria and Iraq to an Insurgency stretching from Iraq down into the Arabian Gulf. And the only way to ignite a civil war in a Gulf country like Saudi Arabia is to have someone with Islamic legitimacy to succeed Baghdadi as the next Caliph.

Many who celebrate the death of Baghdadi fail to see that ISIS' most deadly fight is yet to come. The Iraqi-Syrian war will be but a sideshow compared to ISIS' big battle for the Gulf. And a Caliph with Islamic legitimacy will very likely rise in Baghdadi's place.

Turkey deploys troops to Qatar to protect terror state

Erdogan's Turkey and Qatar share a very similar outlook and foreign policy.

In Libya, Egypt, Syria and Yemen, Turkey and Qatar have supported the Muslim Brotherhood. Both countries also supported ISIS long after Saudi Arabia and allies withdrew support for it.

And now, as Qatar becomes increasingly isolated by other members of the GCC, Turkey has deployed troops to the small resource-rich country in a show of support. Once again, Turkey has shown itself to be a loggerheads with Trump policy.

Trump gave the green light to funding Kurds in Syria against ISIS. This policy - also implemented under Obama - irritated Turkey so much that it mended ties with both Russia and Syria, to keep Bashar Al-Assad in power and curb Kurdish strength in Syria.

Now, after Trump's historic speech in Saudi Arabia, GCC nations are attempting to curb terrorism in their region by isolating Qatar, perhaps the largest funder of terrorism in the world. And Turkey has deployed troops to protect the terror state.

This is likely to force a realignment of powers in the region. Qatar and Turkey will end up more fully allied with the Iranian axis, and an opportunity now exists for Saudi Arabia and the rest of the GCC to push for closer relations with Iraq. If isolating Qatar was part of Trump's desired policy, improvement of GCC-Iraqi relations is also.

Things are now moving very dangerously for the Arabian Gulf. Should relations deteriorate in any form between Saudi Arabia and Turkey, Turkey could use its base in Qatar from which to deploy terrorists into Saudi Arabia - after all, Qatar and Saudi Arabia do share a border. Turkey is overflowing with refugees - redeploying some of those refugees into Saudi Arabia via Qatar might be a way to decrease its problem.

Whether Iran would also get in on such a Qatar-Turkey plot is difficult to guess, as the likely outcome of a war in Saudi Arabia would be more stability for Syria and perhaps for Iraq as well, but Iran could lose their Shi'ite minorities in the Gulf.

What is certain now that Turkey has gotten involved is that regime change and military escalation against Qatar are now very unlikely. What is possible is that Qatar will be expelled from the GCC, sanctions will be put on Qatar and the US might have to relocate its military base from Qatar to the UAE.

On the other hand, Turkish-Saudi relations may deteriorate completely, and a civil war in Saudi Arabia may be plotted in retaliation to isolating Qatar.

Russia has fought the big battle in the war on terror

Russia's strategy is a winning strategy: scope, focus and a hard punch.

Like in world war 2, Russia's impact in the war on terror is marginally overlooked. Until Russia entered the Syrian civil war on the side of the Government, terrorism was largely winning worldwide. ISIS, while retreating in Iraq, was regrouping and attacking the government in Syria. Idlib in Syria had fallen to Al-Qaeda forces. Saudi was aiding Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Libya was an unsolvable debacle. Afghanistan was a stalemate.

But when Russia entered the Syrian Civil War in September 2015, it all changed. In Syria, there was nowhere to hide for any terrorism, whether ISIS - which was already suffering under American air strikes - or Al-Qaeda - which America was attacking far less.

The Syrian Civil War had reached its turning point. In a matter of 12 months, many rebel gains had been reversed. After 18 months, Aleppo city is back in the government's hands; ISIS is on the run from the Syrian Arab Army in Aleppo, Homs and Deir Ez-Zor provinces; the rebels are holed up in Idlib and rebels from other parts of Syria are periodically evacuated to Idlib and out of other cities.

This forced Obama to apply more military might. In the battle of Ramadi, more American air power resulted in victory, while in Libya, Obama moved to destroy ISIS in the city of Sirte. He also urged his Gulf allies to attack Al-Qaeda in Yemen while battling the Houthis, and halted withdrawal from Afghanistan.

I guess some call it, "Obama leading from behind." I call it Putin's genius.

Since Trump has gotten in power, Russia is doing more to end the war on terror than ever. Not only is Russia involved in Syria; Russia is moving behind the scenes in Libya to stabilize the Arabic state under Haftar Al-Khalifa with assistance from Egypt. Meanwhile, Putin is also eyeing Yemen as an extra country of influence should Syria and/or Libya stabilize, or should Russian operations in Syria be challenged.

Rather than tear down Russian gains in the war on terror - which was Hillary Clinton's foreign policy - Trump is likely to want to compete with Russia on who can deal the terrorists the most fatal blow. Trump is likely to strike these blows in Iraq and Afghanistan - in Iraq against ISIS and Iran, and in Afghanistan against the Taliban and by making Afghanistan into a "block" against Iran as Saddam's Iraq once was.

But Russia was the one who started these amazing victories. Even should Trump compete, Russia has fought the big battle in Syria on the war on terror.

Why ISIS is set to grow - not shrink - in the Middle-East

People who believe ISIS will be destroyed after the liberation of Syria and Iraq are not seeing the whole picture.

Many strategists of counter terrorism believe that, should ISIS be destroyed from Syria and Iraq, they won't be able to come back, and that Al-Qaeda is making more inroads by playing the "long game".

This ignores how much weaker Al-Qaeda has become since the death of Osama Bin Laden and the rise of ISIS. The only reasons why we're still talking about Al-Qaeda is because they represent a serious threat to Yemen and Afghanistan. In Syria, Al-Qaeda would join ISIS if the Assad Government were removed. They are only separate today because it is more acceptable for countries to fund Al-Qaeda than ISIS.

As it is, should the Assad Government stay in Syria, it is near impossible for Al-Qaeda to remain in Syria at the conclusion of the civil war. They will be completely obliterated - Jabhat Feteh Ash-Sham will be but a memory of the Syrian Civil War.

But ISIS... ISIS' origins are in Iraq, and as long as Iraq is as unstable as it has been since 2003, ISIS will also remain in Iraq. While Iraqi military gains have been impressive, ISIS has been gaining ground in suicide bombs and insurgent attacks, especially in Baghdad. While crushing terrorism in Syria is much easier - letting the dictator stay in power - this is unlikely to work as well in Iraq.

With Russia set to stabilize Syria and Libya, ISIS will be forced to dig deeper into the fabric of Iraq in order to survive. This represents one of the most serious challenges to the Trump Administration: how to stabilize Iraq and deprive ISIS of an underground safe haven.

Worryingly, while ISIS will be continuing to destabilize Iraq, their efforts will be turned towards Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. For further information on how ISIS threatens Saudi Arabia, read the following article by Alistair Crooke:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-aim-saudi-arabia_b_5748744.html

In fact, it is easy to see how this has been the aim of ISIS all along: declare a Caliphate across Syria and Iraq, force all enemies to utterly destroy the Caliphate, then to "rebirth" the Caliphate in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

So far, no one in counter terrorism is addressing this. They are looking at the paper tiger of Al-Qaeda in Syria, when they should be looking at the threat ISIS is to the Arabian Gulf!

Not only is war and instability coming to Saudi Arabia, but also to most of the other Gulf states: Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and U.A.E (Dubai), which may lead to the fall of these smaller kingdoms to ISIS. Such instability will cause an oil shortage - greatly increasing oil prices and forcing the whole world to gaze in horror at Saudi Arabia as they have been in Syria.

Destroying ISIS from the Arabian Gulf will be a near impossible task. Once ISIS detonates there, it will be easier for America to stabilize Iraq than drive ISIS out of Saudi Arabia.

Predictions for Trump and the war on terror

These are my predictions for the war on terror in the next 4 - 8 years under Trump:

1) The jihadists' spaces will shrink. In Syria and Libya, Russia is pushing radical Islamic jihadists out of power and is replacing them with strong governments in Bashar Al-Assad and Haftar Al-Khalifa respectively. Trump is unlikely to wage war over these Russian policies. Trump is also likely to double down on Afghanistan and Iraq after ISIS is defeated, to utterly destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan and to make sure ISIS does not return to Iraq.

2) The jihadist space in Yemen will grow. By supporting the Saudi-led war on Yemen, America is likely to be hurled into a quagmire almost as deadly as Syria. By striking Al-Qaeda and supporting the Saudi air war on Yemen, Trump is attacking two enemies - who are fighting each other - at the same time. Ultimately, one has to prevail over the other.

In the case of Yemen, Al-Qaeda is perceived by Saudi less of a threat than the Houthis, so Trump will probably be forced to either withdraw support for the Saudi war on Yemen, or allow Al-Qaeda to grow in Yemen at the expense of the Houthis. Either way, the jihadist space in Yemen is set to grow under Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

3) ISIS and Al-Qaeda will come to Saudi Arabia. Should Trump let Russia stabilize Libya and Syria while Trump himself focuses on stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia will become incredibly vulnerable to civil war. This is largely due to Mohammed Bin Salman trying to modernize the kingdom in a completely impractical way, while also tying up too many Saudi resources in Yemen.

This will likely lead to Saudi Arabia imploding, with ISIS being a problem in the north, east and centre of the country while Al-Qaeda ending up a problem in the south of the country. What America does in that situation is anyone's guess.

4) American relations with Middle-East nations will change drastically. It seems to me that Turkish-American relations are at the worst point in their history, due to having different priorities in the Syrian Civil War: for the Turks, the priority is the Kurds; for America, the priority is ISIS.

With Turkish-American relations set to further deteriorate, in Turkey's place America will likely raise up its US-dependent, allies - and those with enormous resources - to a different level of relations. Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind in particular. Both have potential to function similarly to how Turkey had functioned for America in the past and, should they become stable, will become strong enough to keep American allies powerful in the region due to enormous swathes of natural resources.

In addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, relations with Jordan and Egypt are likely to deepen, as well as, predictably, Israel. These strengthening and weakening of relations will all affect the war on terror, as countries which have supported terrorism, like Turkey and Pakistan, are more likely to end up US' enemies rather than allies.


These are the predictions during the - likely - 2 presidential terms of the Trump Administration. We'll find out just how close or off the mark I was in due time.

Had John Waver had been George W. Bush

For my article 'If John Waver had been Barrack Obama' read here:

http://jwaverfpolicy.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/if-john-waver-had-been-barrack-obama.html


In this article I will explain what John Waver would have done had he been President of the United States in the time George W. Bush was, from 2001 - 2009, and his subsequent response to 9-11 and the war on terror.

Had John Waver been George W. Bush and 9-11 occurred, I would have of course authorized the Afghan War with Congress Approval. However, I would have never gone into Iraq.

Rather than engaging in an Iraq War, I would have orchestrated an 'Iraq deal,' getting chemical and biological weapons out of Iraq in exchange for sanctions lifted and Saddam Hussein able to continue his rule in Baghdad.

In Afghanistan, rather than push for democracy, I would have allowed a military dictator to take control of the country. Like in Syria under Bashar Al-Assad, I would have pushed for secular and democratic reform in Afghanistan under the dictator, with an enormous emphasis on the newly formed Afghan Army driving Al-Qaeda and the Taliban out of the country.

In particular, I would have targeted the Afghan-Pakistani border and increased spending on border security over and above spending tax-payer dollars on infrastructure. Should an Afghani economy have materialized, American tax-payer dollars would have been less necessary to provide infrastructure for the country as Afghanistan would have had the economic means to do it themselves.

I would have made Afghanistan a necessary and top ally of America in the Middle-East. I would have increased bilateral trade between America and Afghanistan, sending a clear message to allies who fund terrorism, such as Pakistan, that we don't need allies who stab us in the back.

Yet John Waver would not have gone into just Afghanistan, as America was looking for a fight and not satisfied with invading Afghanistan. They really wanted to make someone pay for what happened with 9-11. In addition to invading Afghanistan, I would have pushed for an invasion of Somalia.

Not only were Americans spoiling for a fight; after 9-11, they pragmatically needed another supply of oil other than just Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Rather than destabilizing Iraq to get that oil, or in President John Waver's case, rather than just lifting sanctions off Iraq, stabilizing Somalia would have been more beneficial for the wider region and would have increased American appeal in the Middle-East and Northern Africa.

By 2003, Somalia had been in chaos for over ten years. Sadly, it is still in chaos today. Somalia is perhaps as bad as Syria and Iraq, but the violence has not ended; it has just kept going and going. Ash-Shabab, an Al-Qaeda group, had taken up refuge in Somalia, which is why George W. Bush authorized a bombing campaign there. Rather than authorizing a bombing campaign in Somalia and an invasion of Iraq, I would have ditched Iraq War plans altogether and invaded Somalia to stabilize it and liquidate the Al-Qaeda threat.

Stabilizing Somalia would have had immense economic benefits and would have been a smaller project than the Iraq War. That said, it would still have been more challenging than the Afghan War. Reinstating stability in a lawless country is no easy task. However, with help of experts in Somali culture and tribal warfare - including listening to their advice - it would have been far more achievable than democracy in Iraq.

One of the other benefits of establishing an American presence in Somalia would have been its close proximity to Yemen and Saudi Arabia. This would mean that Saudi Arabia would have felt more pressure from a nearby US presence from across the Red Sea and would have had to check their actions - such as relations with Al-Qaeda - more carefully. Not only so, but Al-Qaeda would have increased its hold on Yemen as a result of its expulsion not only from Saudi Arabia (which occurred in 2006) but also from Somalia, had the Somali war been successful.

It would have left an incredibly easy platform for intervention in Yemen against Al-Qaeda. Perhaps rather than endorsing the Arab Spring, America would have chosen to focus on stabilizing Yemen, across the sea from Somalia and gaining military bases south of Saudi Arabia. Yemen, together with Somalia, could have acted as alternate top allies for America over Saudi Arabia. Like with choosing Afghanistan over Pakistan, John Waver could have reshuffled alliances in the coasts of the Red Sea, as a result of 9-11 and the war on terror.

Alas, we will never return to those days. Somalia will continue to deteriorate, and Trump is stuck fixing a plethora of countries: Afghanistan and Iraq - thanks to W. Bush and Obama - as well as Syria, Libya and Yemen - thanks specifically to Obama. The amount of wars engaged in by the US could have been much more beneficial for the region had earlier actions been different.

The next 9-11

We are not far from the next 9-11 from occurring.

As ISIS is losing its Caliphate, from Mosul, to Hawija, to Deir Ez-Zor, to Anbar, to Raqqa, the terror group will turn more to terror attacks in increasing frustration.

I expect this will occur after the fall of Mosul to Iraqi forces.

I also expect this will not happen in America. America is too heavily fortified against another 9-11 from occurring in their country. It is instead likely to happen in Europe.

The prime targets for a 9-11-style attack by ISIS are Belgium, France, Germany or Sweden. Make no mistake: a 9-11 attack by ISIS will be far worse than September 11, 2001. This is because ISIS show they are more focused on killing civilians than attacking governments. Al-Qaeda was about attacking American centers, like the world trade center, the Pentagon - even the White House.

ISIS' aims are far more primitive. Destroying an entire football stadium, or somewhere else with mass population density, would be enough for them.

Once an ISIS attack of this magnitude occurs in Europe, civil wars will ignite like wildfire. It will mean the instability of Iraq and Syria will come to Europe.

Obama's missed opportunity with Pakistan and Somalia

Obama increased George Bush's wars from 4 to 7.

Never forget that the same year Obama withdrew from Iraq, in 2011, he funded operations against Syria and Libya in the Arab Spring. By 2012, he expanded the drone war to Yemen, then bombed Iraq in 2014 in the war on ISIS, while also expanding said war on ISIS into Syria that same year. Obama also went back into Libya to fight ISIS in 2016.

Rather than being the anti-war candidate, Obama proved himself to be the 'anti-American troops' candidate. Though he deserves credit in not overthrowing Bashar Al-Assad and in his war on ISIS in Iraq, he loses most of that credit by landing tax-payer money into the pockets of ISIS in Syria.

Obama could have been an anti-war candidate. Clearly he was not.

Had Obama not endorsed the Arab Spring, that could have meant that Obama did not get involved in Syria, Libya or Yemen. But there are still 2 other drone wars that were, in my mind, unnecessary.

Rather than pouring loads of cash into rebellions in Syria and Libya - which turned into jihadists and terrorists - he could have withdrawn from drone strikes in Pakistan and Somalia. Imagine that! Instead of Obama turning 4 wars into 7, he could've turned it into 1!

Had Obama withdrawn from Somalia, Pakistan and Iraq and focused head-over-heels on Afghanistan, resources could have been far better spent. Of course Somalia, Pakistan and Iraq would have ended up as terrorist safe-havens, but by the time Afghanistan was actually solved - which it could have been in this scenario - Obama would have been able to return to these 3 other countries to continue the mission!

The folly behind expanding the war on terror with not enough resources should be obvious. Obama expanded 11 trillion dollars of debt under Bush to 19 trillion dollars by the time he left. That is almost half the debt again!

Like Britain during the years it was alone in the fight against Nazi Germany, America under Obama should have known their priority: Afghanistan. They should have left Somalia, Pakistan and Iraq alone. The reasons for Iraq are obvious: American support for the war had completely evaporated. It was a contributing factor to Obama's election victory over John McCain. But what about Pakistan and Somalia?

Pakistan borders Afghanistan and is the main reason why Afghanistan is so unstable. As I have mentioned in other posts, had Obama spent billions of dollars on Afghan border security on the Afghani-Pakistani border, the Taliban threat to Afghanistan would have been greatly reduced. That would mean that the Taliban could have been obliterated from Afghanistan with the remnants regrouping in Pakistan. With Afghanistan stabilized, then Obama could have dealt with Pakistan.

As for Somalia, letting terrorism get worse there would have been a better idea than funding terrorism in Syria, Libya and Yemen, which happened under Obama. Obama endorsed the Arab Spring, which is how Syria, Libya and Yemen were able to be added to the list of countries bombed by America. America supported groups with links to Al-Qaeda and ISIS in all 3 countries, while also bombing those same forces he funded. It would have been fiscally far cheaper to come back to an Islamic State in Iraq and an Islamic State in Somalia - with Assad and Gidaffi still ruling in Syria and Libya - than the current scenario.

Was Osama Bin Laden's Death a victory in the war on terror?

Was Osama Bin Laden's Death a victory in the war on terror? It was.

However, this victory has been overshadowed by American policy during the Arab Spring. Had Obama abstained from intervention in Syria and Libya in particular, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi would have never been able to take the limelight from Al-Qaeda.

With the death of Bin Laden was a - much-missed - opportunity for terrorism to break down and no longer be the threat it once was. While Al-Qaeda broke down after the death of Bin Laden, terrorism did not decrease but increased under a new face, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS.

The truth is the death of Bin Laden meant that a new, more formidable head of the serpent was able to rise in its stead. And Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi is not only the next Bin Laden - he is worse than Bin Laden.

We have not yet felt the full effects of the establishment of ISIS' Caliphate. On one hand, ISIS are yet to do a 9-11-sized terror attack. But mark my words: after Mosul is liberated, we are approaching dangerously close to the day when ISIS will attack at a 9-11-sized scale.

On the other hand, we have not yet felt ISIS' explosive power in deconstructing the Arabian Peninsula. When that happens, one had better hope Iraq is stable, otherwise the ISIS madness will return to Iraq but stronger than ever.

When these effects are fully realised, Osama Bin Laden will be but a distant memory. Mark my words: America will wish it never endorsed the Arab Spring by the time these events have taken place.

To overcome these issues is enormous, but without overcoming ISIS and preparing for what is soon to be a brutal onslaught, the West will never win the war on terror.

What if Obama never endorsed the Arab Spring?

If President Barrack Obama never endorsed the Arab Spring, he would have had a more sizable impact in the war on terror.

If Barrack Obama had never overthrown Gidaffi in Libya, Gidaffi would have regained control of Libya between 2011 and 2012. Had Obama never supported the uprising in Syria and forbidden his Muslim allies in funding the Syrian Opposition, Bashar Al-Assad would have remained in power after crushing an uprising in 1 or 2 years.

In short, ISIS would have never existed in Syria and Libya, and never existed as a separate entity from Al-Qaeda.

It would have meant that in 2014, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, while certain to create instability and chaos in Iraq under the name ISI (the Islamic State of Iraq), would have been unable to declare a Caliphate by crushing the Syria-Iraqi border. He would have only been able to urge Muslims to fighting their governments.

ISI would have never been powerful enough to break away from Al-Qaeda - only cause a resurgence of bloodletting in Iraq.

Obama would have returned to Iraq as he did in 2014, but he would have never had to combat as extensive an ISIS threat as he did in the later years of his Presidency. He would have been able to maintain that efforts and focus must be maintained towards Afghanistan over and above Iraq.

Obama, maintaining more emphasis on Afghanistan than Iraq, may have been able to do more sizable damage to the Taliban in Afghanistan instead of chasing after an ISIS threat his policies created.

In short, Obama has completely undone any work that he accomplished with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, withdrawal from Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. It has all been undone because he believed that Libya and Syria were ready for 'democracy' when Iraq as early as 2003 clearly showed why this is folly.

Obama will go down in history as a President whose efforts in the war on terror were misguided and contradictory. He should have known that the war for democracy must wait until the war on terror is won.

Islamic State threatens both Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia

In 2013, when the Islamic State broke off from Al-Qaeda over 'fiqh,' or Islamic jurisprudence, a 'crack' in the universal terror front was formed. Previously all under Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri and Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi are now the two faces on the terror front with different goals.

Ayman Zawahiri, the current leader of Al-Qaeda - like Bin Laden before him - has the aim of warring on America through terrorism and provocation, with the ultimate aim of bankrupting America and allowing the Middle-East to be left alone. The Al-Qaeda group sees the defeat of America as a prelude to the defeat of Israel and a slow return to the way things used to be in an Islamic Middle-East.

Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi - the leader of the Islamic State - aims to establish a Caliphate at the earliest possible time, primarily through a process of 'waking up' the Sunni sleeping giant by waging war on the Shi'ites of the Middle-East. Abu Musab Az-Zarqawi, the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (2003) was the founder of this ideology.

The differences are stark. Al-Qaeda's first priority is America; the Islamic State's first priority is Shi'ite Muslims and Sunnis in error. Al-Qaeda does not believe in the early return to the Caliphate - the Islamic State does. Al-Qaeda does not always resort to extreme implementations of Shariah law and jihad - the Islamic State does.

Ultimately, the Islamic State threatens both Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia. After declaring the Caliphate Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, in a recording, called for Saudis to wage war on their Shi'ite populations and on the Saudi military before striking the Americans and their military bases. The Islamic State has been known to fight Al-Qaeda branch Jabhat An-Nusra (now Jabhat Fateh Ash-Sham) in Syria, through military campaigns and suicide bombings.

With a Trump Administration threatening to stabilize Syria and Iraq, the threat to the legitimacy of both Saudi Arabia and Al-Qaeda is all the more potent. Should Trump succeed in stabilizing these two countries under Iranian-friendly governments, the Islamic State would be able to turn to both Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, point the finger and say, 'see? The Shi'ites control Iraq and Syira because you have not been waging jihad properly!'

The Islamic State is set to cause a regional explosion in Saudi Arabia. Should Syria and Iraq stabilize, the threat would arrive to the conservative kingdom sooner. This is especially true given the direction Mohammed Bin Salman is moving the kingdom in.

With the Islamic State threatening to tear Saudi Arabia from its monarchy, this threatens Al-Qaeda's sway in the region as well. Should the Islamic State control the holy sites of Mecca and Medina, Al-Qaeda's vision for the Middle-East would be shattered. Instead of focusing on Israel and America, the Islamic State would cause Arabs to fight each other and strengthen Israel's standing in the region - some countries previously hostile to Israel would secretly ally with her to protect them from the Islamic State threat.

Should Saudi Arabia continue its aggressive westernization as adopted by Mohammed Bin Salman, I doubt the royal family would survive an Islamic State uprising. Mohammed Bin Salman has made comments about distancing Saudi Arabia from Salafiya - their conservative form of Sunni Islam - but, like a nail in the coffin, has also suggested improving ties with Israel in a more public manner.

Such would lead Mohammed Bin Salman to ruin and potential assassination. There is no way that even a non-Salafi Sunni country can make such outrageous statements about Israel without severe consequences, let alone the son of the custodian of the two holy mosques!

However, Saudi Arabia is faced with another possible solution to their Islamic State problem: an alliance with Al-Qaeda. In the Iraqi-Kuwait war, Osama Bin Laden offered for his Mujahideen to fight in Kuwait against Saddam Hussein's forces, which was refused in favour of the Americans. While this caused enormous damage in relations between Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden, an Islamic State threat to the Gulf could repair relations between Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia out of necessity.

An Al-Qaeda-Saudi-Arabia merger would stand a better - but by no means certain - chance of success against the Islamic State. It would certainly stand a better chance than a Saudi Arabia ruled by Mohammed Bin Salman!