ISIS Claims Algeria Border Attack

This undated hand out picture released by Norway's energy group Statoil on January 17, 2013 shows vehicles parked at the In Amenas gas field, jointly operated by British oil giant BP, Norway's Statoil and state-run Algerian energy firm Sonatrach, in eastern Algeria near the Libyan border. AFP Photo / Statoil / Kjeitil Alsvik
This undated hand out picture released by Norway's energy group Statoil on January 17, 2013 shows vehicles parked at the In Amenas gas field, jointly operated by British oil giant BP, Norway's Statoil and state-run Algerian energy firm Sonatrach, in eastern Algeria near the Libyan border. AFP Photo / Statoil / Kjeitil Alsvik
TT
20

ISIS Claims Algeria Border Attack

This undated hand out picture released by Norway's energy group Statoil on January 17, 2013 shows vehicles parked at the In Amenas gas field, jointly operated by British oil giant BP, Norway's Statoil and state-run Algerian energy firm Sonatrach, in eastern Algeria near the Libyan border. AFP Photo / Statoil / Kjeitil Alsvik
This undated hand out picture released by Norway's energy group Statoil on January 17, 2013 shows vehicles parked at the In Amenas gas field, jointly operated by British oil giant BP, Norway's Statoil and state-run Algerian energy firm Sonatrach, in eastern Algeria near the Libyan border. AFP Photo / Statoil / Kjeitil Alsvik

The ISIS terrorist group said on Tuesday that it was behind Sunday’s attack on an Algerian military barracks near the country’s border with Mali that killed one soldier.

The militant group sent the bomber in a vehicle rigged with explosives, but a sentry stopped him before he could enter the compound and the blast killed both men, according to a Defense Ministry statement. The group’s Algerian leader is a 47-year-old militant known as Abu Walid el-Sahrawi.

“The martyred brother Omar al-Ansari ... entered the base and exploded his car against them,” the group said in a statement.

Algeria, in common with other countries in the Sahel and Sahara regions, is growing increasingly concerned about the risk of militant groups taking advantage of the escalating conflict in Libya and chaos in Mali to expand their presence.

In Mali, the government has said it is ready to talk with militant groups in the hope of ending an insurgency that has made swathes of the country ungovernable and stoked ethnic violence.

In Libya, chaos in parts of the country since the 2011 revolution has created space for ISIS, which launched a cross-border attack against a Tunisian town in 2016, but which is now mostly active in Libya’s south.

“We need to focus on both Libya and Mali,” a former Algerian counter-terrorism officer told Reuters. “This attack could be a preparation for what might come if we don’t contain the threats.”

Algiers has been discussing how to stem the rising militant threat in the Sahel with Mali in recent days, and has offered it some humanitarian assistance. It shares more than 1,500km of mostly remote, desert border with Mali and Libya.

Sunday’s attack was the first in Algeria for several years. In 2013, a militant group linked to al Qaeda staged an attack on the Tiguentourine gas processing facility in southern Algeria that killed dozens of people, including foreigners.

That was the deadliest spasm of militant violence in Algeria since a 1990s civil war between radical groups and the state in which more than 200,000 people died.

Algeria is already wrestling with a major political crisis after a year of mass protests that helped oust the veteran president and have continued, with demonstrators now demanding the ruling elite be fully replaced.

The country also faces economic problems, with declining energy sales contributing to a fall in state revenue and planned cuts in public spending this year.



How Did Iraq Survive ‘Existential Threat More Dangerous than ISIS’?

Iraqi sheikhs participate in a solidarity demonstration with Iran on a road leading to the Green Zone, where the US Embassy is located in Baghdad (AP). 
Iraqi sheikhs participate in a solidarity demonstration with Iran on a road leading to the Green Zone, where the US Embassy is located in Baghdad (AP). 
TT
20

How Did Iraq Survive ‘Existential Threat More Dangerous than ISIS’?

Iraqi sheikhs participate in a solidarity demonstration with Iran on a road leading to the Green Zone, where the US Embassy is located in Baghdad (AP). 
Iraqi sheikhs participate in a solidarity demonstration with Iran on a road leading to the Green Zone, where the US Embassy is located in Baghdad (AP). 

Diplomatic sources in Baghdad revealed to Asharq Al-Awsat that Iraqi authorities were deeply concerned about sliding into the Israeli-Iranian war, which they considered “an existential threat to Iraq even more dangerous than that posed by ISIS when it overran a third of the country’s territory.”

The sources explained that “ISIS was a foreign body that inevitably had to be expelled by the Iraqi entity, especially given the international and regional support Baghdad enjoyed in confronting it... but the war (with Israel) threatened Iraq’s unity.”

They described this “existential threat” as follows:

-When the war broke out, Baghdad received messages from Israel, conveyed via Azerbaijan and other channels, stating that Israel would carry out “harsh and painful” strikes in response to any attacks launched against it from Iraqi territory. The messages held the Iraqi authorities responsible for any such attacks originating from their soil.

-Washington shifted from the language of prior advice to direct warnings, highlighting the grave consequences that could result from any attacks carried out by Iran-aligned factions.

-Iraqi authorities feared what they described as a “disaster scenario”: that Iraqi factions would launch attacks on Israel, prompting Israel to retaliate with a wave of assassinations similar to those it conducted against Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon or Iranian generals and scientists at the start of the war.

-The sources noted that delivering painful blows to these factions would inevitably inflame the Shiite street, potentially pushing the religious authority to take a strong stance. At that point, the crisis could take on the character of a Shiite confrontation with Israel.

-This scenario raised fears that other Iraqi components would then blame the Shiite component for dragging Iraq into a war that could have been avoided. In such circumstances, the divergence in choices between the Shiite and Sunni communities could resurface, reviving the threat to Iraq’s unity.

-Another risk was the possibility that the Kurds would declare that the Iraqi government was acting as if it only represented one component, and that the country was exhausted by wars, prompting the Kurdish region to prefer distancing itself from Baghdad to avoid being drawn into unwanted conflicts.

-Mohammed Shia Al Sudani’s government acted with a mix of firmness and prudence. It informed the factions it would not tolerate any attempt to drag the country into a conflict threatening its unity, while on the other hand keeping its channels open with regional and international powers, especially the US.

-Iraqi authorities also benefited from the position of Iranian authorities, who did not encourage the factions to engage in the war but instead urged them to remain calm. Some observers believed that Iran did not want to risk its relations with Iraq after losing Syria.

-Another significant factor was the factions’ realization that the war exceeded their capabilities, especially in light of what Hezbollah faced in Lebanon and the Israeli penetrations inside Iran itself, which demonstrated that Israel possessed precise intelligence on hostile organizations and was able to reach its targets thanks to its technological superiority and these infiltrations.

-The sources indicated that despite all the pressure and efforts, “rogue groups” tried to prepare three attacks, but the authorities succeeded in thwarting them before they were carried out.

The sources estimated that Iran suffered a deep wound because Israel moved the battle onto Iranian soil and encouraged the US to target its nuclear facilities. They did not rule out another round of fighting “if Iran does not make the necessary concessions on the nuclear issue.”