For Resistance axis, US war on ISIS presents an opportunity

Al-Akhbar is currently going through a transitional phase whereby the English website is available for Archival purposes only. All new content will be published in Arabic on the main website (

Al-Akhbar Management

About 500 volunteers from Tal Afar attend a combat training session at a military camp in the shrine city of Karbala in central Iraq on September 25, 2014 to join the fight against jihadists of the Islamic State (IS) group which led a sweeping offensive in June that overran much of the country's Sunni Arab heartland. (Photo: AFP-Mohammed Sawaf)

By: Wafiq Qanso

Published Thursday, September 25, 2014

The vision which guides the Resistance axis regarding the new US war could be summarized thusly: "We will deal with the new invasion piece by piece, making use of the objective intersection of interests in the elimination of ISIS." However, this begs the question: what comes after ISIS?

As the US launched its air strikes against takfiri positions in Syrian territories on Tuesday, Damascus seemed to take a distinct position from its allies. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad clearly supported "all international efforts to fight terrorism." Moscow, on the other hand, warned that "a unilateral formal notification of airstrikes" is not consistent with international law. However, the more hardline position came from Tehran, which considered that "the raids are without any legal basis, since they are launched in the absence of a UN mandate."

"America is the mother of terrorism," Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah declared on Tuesday. It is "not qualified ethically or morally to present itself as a leader of a coalition to fight terrorism," he added.

"These are all different variations of the same position," an informed source told Al-Akhbar. "Syria's words are a clear indication that there are no real fears, until now, that the war on terrorism will be sidetracked into a war against the regime."

Despite Washington's denials, "coordination" between the US and Syria did take place, albeit at a minimal level. Damascus was informed of the timing of the operation prior to the first US raid. This is the first sign. The second sign of cooperation was the visit by Iraqi national security adviser Faleh al-Fayyad – who works on the line between Washington and Damascus – to the Syrian capital, where he met Assad.

A third sign, pointing to coordination on another level, could be that areas targeted by the first wave of raids are traditionally under Russian radar supervision. News about attacks on an ISIS position near Ain Arab (Kubani) close to the Turkish border on Wednesday could be the fourth sign. It also meant that Turkey will be far from achieving its ambitions to create a buffer zone controlled by the opposition along its borders with Syria.

The statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry was clear in this respect. It warned of "attempts to achieve private geopolitical objectives through the violation of the sovereignty of nations." Ankara's only choice is to become modest. Although Turkey is the primary beneficiary and the actual sponsor of ISIS, ultimately, it cannot stray too far from the US flock and risk its strategic alliance with the West.

Two additional signs come from Turkey in this respect: the barring of 1,000 fighters from entering Syria and the declaration by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of his country's possible participation in the military campaign, even if only through logistics.

But why the distinction in the positions within the "Resistance axis"?

Sources indicated that everyone in this alliance feels threatened and are not pleased about the US return to the region under the guise of fighting terrorism. The axis believes that the threat posed by ISIS cannot be compared to the risks of direct US presence in the region or even at the borders of any of its countries.

The main concern is the next step, what comes after ISIS. Waiting for the answer, the Resistance axis will attempt to transform the threat into an opportunity, taking advantage of the objective intersection of interests with Washington in eliminating ISIS. This is exactly what it did after the war on Taliban and on Saddam Hussein in the previous decade. The axis will deal with the US attack in each sector.

The Resistance axis will lose nothing by eliminating ISIS. It can reap benefits from the fact that the war enjoys a wide Arab Sunni cover, which could defuse the Sunni-Shia sectarian strife threatening to engulf the region. Even more beneficial is that the war on ISIS coincides with overt signs of Iranian-Saudi flirtation. This is in addition to unforeseeable factors, which could appear with the progress in military operations.

Although it is too early to discern the outcomes of the situation, it seems to be happening at a preset rhythm. Washington keeps repeating it will not be sending troops for a ground operation. Early Wednesday morning, Reuters quoted a senior Iranian official saying that the US had informed his country in advance of the intentions to attack ISIS in Syria. "Assad and his government will not be targeted by any military operations," he said.

Reuters also quoted a senior US State Department official confirming that the "intentions" were communicated with the Iranians. In principle, this meant that the same thing happened between Washington and Moscow. To begin with, Iran and Russia did not reject a war on terrorism as long as it was compatible with international law and coupled with the approval of the Syrian government, which does not seem to be too worried. Washington, on the other hand, had utilized "international legitimacy" to an extent when it informed Damascus of the strike deadline through Syria UN representative Bashar al-Jaafari.

As for Hezbollah, Nasrallah clearly stated that their history with the US does not allow them to be in the same alliance. Lebanon cannot be part of an alliance with consequences and commitments that it cannot handle. This is a position based on principles. However, eliminating or weakening ISIS will not hurt the party, whose best fighters are engaged in battle against them. Hezbollah will not hesitate to exploit the outcomes of the US military operation on the field and in politics. This is what is meant by "turning a risk into an opportunity."

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.


You do realize that advocacy of collaboration with the Great Satan nullifies your right to use the term "resistance axis" right? You are the biggest beneficiaries of US imperialism after israel and the GCC

That makes no sense at all: how is the resistance axis' deft management of US led operations equal to an aquiesence?

Let's see umm.. sharing airstrike intel in exchange for NATO breach of Syrian sovereignty, open collaboration with the US via shared US puppets in Baghdad and Erbil, and virtually 0 attempts to retake zionist occupied land in Lebanon, Syria, or Palestine since this civil war began. Ya your "resistance axis" never existed. It's just a bunch of self-righteous opportunists

This is what I think is happening: Due to its publically announced decisions about bombing Syria, the US had to do it in order to project power and impress its stooges in the Middle East region. To do so, it must have made a secret deal with both Syria and Russia that the bombing would not target the Syrian Government. Whether it will keep its promise or not is something that we’ll have to wait and see. But Uncle Sam is known for not keeping promises. I tend to think this was just another trick like the Libya’s no-fly zone to get the job done, and Russia, Iran, and Syria all fell for it.

It is my opinion that America was trying to kill two birds with one stone. The plan “A” was to topple Maliki’s Government first, to be followed by Syria. America had anticipated that IS would be able to overrun Baghdad, topple the Maliki Government and replace it with Saddam II, all under American management. With Iraq then being under a US-friendly Sunni control, it would have become much simpler to topple the Syrian government because at that time IS would have become much stronger. It would have access to Iraq’s weaponry and the support of various Sunni groups; it could then attack Syrian forces from many sides and finish the job.

The coalition of the backward Arabs and the “philanthropist” America is the plan “B”.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><img><h1><h2><h3><h4><h5><h6><blockquote><span><aside>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

^ Back to Top