ISIS: A ‘Caliphate’ that Dies, but an Organization that Lives

An Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga fighter stands inside of a destroyed building on the frontline in the Shaqouli village, near Mosul, after recapturing it from ISIS in 2016. (AFP)
An Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga fighter stands inside of a destroyed building on the frontline in the Shaqouli village, near Mosul, after recapturing it from ISIS in 2016. (AFP)
TT
20

ISIS: A ‘Caliphate’ that Dies, but an Organization that Lives

An Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga fighter stands inside of a destroyed building on the frontline in the Shaqouli village, near Mosul, after recapturing it from ISIS in 2016. (AFP)
An Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga fighter stands inside of a destroyed building on the frontline in the Shaqouli village, near Mosul, after recapturing it from ISIS in 2016. (AFP)

The successive defeats of ISIS reveal a clear discrepancy between western researchers and specialists about the future of the terrorist organization and the nature of its internal changes after the possible death of its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and loss of its capital in Iraq.

Senior Research Fellow at the French National Center for Scientific Research Francois Burgat said that the heavy defeat of ISIS in Mosul does not mean the end of the group, because the political reasons that produced it still remain.

In fact, there are three main factors that allow ISIS to continue to exist and renew itself. The first lies in the phenomenon of colonialism and new colonialism in the Middle East. This impact of this phenomenon on the Arab social geography in the Middle East has produced a mixture of political Islam and terrorist movements.

On this note, Burgat said that the roots of ISIS can be traced to the nature of international politics in the region, as well as local factors. He said that the roots go back as far as 1999 when Jordanian authorities released Abou Musab al-Zarqawi from jail. The world soon found itself faced by this man’s ardor and the strategic errors of former US President George W. Bush and Barack Obama that led to the rise of the black ISIS flags across vast swathes of Iraq and Syria, noted Burgat.

Based on this, he stressed that all theories on the formation of extremist movement that ignore the ties of hegemony between north and south are ineffective. He explained that these theories only focus on the instigators of violence without pausing on the circumstances that produced extremism.

Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Institute echoed these stances, remarking in an article in The Atlantic in September 2016: “To understand the Middle East’s seemingly intractable conflicts, we need to go back to at least 1924, the year the last caliphate was formally abolished.”

The second factor, said Burgat, is a phenomenon that goes beyond religious intolerance, but is at the same time a product of a political crisis. This is embodied in the “Syrian predicament.” He explained that the regime of Bashar Assad is the main reason that has led to the establishment of the ISIS plague.

“The rise of ISIS has been without a doubt one of the strategic goals of the regime. Its birth in this way was clearly facilitated through its various agencies. There is no doubt that since the early days of the crisis, Bashar Assad did all he could so that this scarecrow could play its role in the fastest and most attention-grabbing way to influence the international public,” he added.

The third factor for ISIS’ continued existence is religious intolerance, which is the product of the first two factors. Burgat said that the terror group’s religious rhetoric is only a factor that furthered intolerance.

ISIS persists in Iraq

Based on the above, the current political crisis raging in Iraq and Syria justifies ISIS’ control of some regions that it considers to be part of its alleged state despite the bitter defeat that it faced in the capital of its alleged caliphate. The group is still present in Iraq’s Dajla, Euphrates, Kirkouk and al-Jazeera provinces. ISIS actually only controls Talaafar in al-Jazeera where it is besieged by the Peshmerga and Iraqi forces.

Given the situation on the ground, the group is suffering from internal organizational problems that have led it to declare Talaafar independent from its “caliphate.” This in turn led to internal fighting between the group that left four of its members dead on July 14.

Why do the terrorists persist?

French political scientist Olivier Roy attributed the persistence of ISIS in Iraq and Syria not to the “Islamization of intolerance,” but to the fact that terrorism and terrorism groups are phenomena that are created by political crises. Burgat meanwhile stressed that it was impossible to separate the internal roots of organizations from the foreign policy of western powers in the Middle East.

He noted that terror groups create new mechanisms to adapt to their internal changes and they also change up the ways to confront the western “colonial” powers. The latest movements of ISIS reveal that it is aware of the severity of the defeats that it has suffered in the latest battles. It has also tried to “overcome” the difficulties it is facing in Iraq through establishing a new center for itself in the city of al-Mayadeen in Syria’s Deir al-Zour.

In Syria’s Raqqa, ISIS is still withstanding the assault against it and it preparing for the upcoming Talaafar battle that will pit it against Iraqi forces, the international coalition and Popular Mobilization Forces.

Generally, terror experts and specialists agree that the international battle against ISIS is gradually achieving its goals in destroying the terrorist group’s myth and ability to hold ground that it has seized. The successive defeats, said American terrorism expert Aaron Y. Zelin, will not lead to ISIS’ defeat. It will continue to pose a terror threat, but it will no longer have the excuses that the extremists use to continue in justifying the continuity of their alleged state, even if this state is a diminished version of what it used to be.

Burgat meanwhile said that the Mosul battle saw the world offer the keys of a destroyed Sunni city to Shi’ite or Kurdish militias. This has thereby postponed the problems that the international community has failed to resolve. This phenomenon will continue in Iraq, Syria and other similar countries, as long as solid political institutions capable of defeating the deep causes of extremism are not built.

Political failure has made ISIS one of the main characteristics of the general political crisis that Iraq has been suffering from since 2003 and Syria since 2011. The ongoing ineffectiveness of the political institutions of these two countries in overcoming violent sectarianism and ensuring the political participation of all parties in the democratic process has made the chances of defeating terrorism close to nil, warned Burgat.

*Khalid Yamout is a visiting political science professor at Morocco’s Mohammed V University



What to Know about Past Meetings between Putin and His American Counterparts

(FILES) US President Donald Trump meets with Russia's President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, on July 16, 2018 (Photo by Alexey NIKOLSKY / Sputnik / AFP)
(FILES) US President Donald Trump meets with Russia's President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, on July 16, 2018 (Photo by Alexey NIKOLSKY / Sputnik / AFP)
TT
20

What to Know about Past Meetings between Putin and His American Counterparts

(FILES) US President Donald Trump meets with Russia's President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, on July 16, 2018 (Photo by Alexey NIKOLSKY / Sputnik / AFP)
(FILES) US President Donald Trump meets with Russia's President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, on July 16, 2018 (Photo by Alexey NIKOLSKY / Sputnik / AFP)

Bilateral meetings between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterparts were a regular occurrence early in his 25-year tenure.

But as tensions mounted between Moscow and the West following the illegal annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and allegations of meddling with the 2016 US elections, those meetings became increasingly less frequent, and their tone appeared less friendly.

Here’s what to know about past meetings between Russian and US presidents:

Putin and Joe Biden

Putin and Joe Biden met only once while holding the presidency –- in Geneva in June 2021.

Russia was massing troops on the border with Ukraine, where large swaths of land in the east had long been occupied by Moscow-backed forces; Washington repeatedly accused Russia of cyberattacks. The Kremlin was intensifying its domestic crackdown on dissent, jailing opposition leader Alexei Navalny months earlier and harshly suppressing protests demanding his release.

Putin and Biden talked for three hours, with no breakthroughs. They exchanged expressions of mutual respect, but firmly restated their starkly different views on various issues.

They spoke again via videoconference in December 2021 as tensions heightened over Ukraine. Biden threatened sanctions if Russia invaded, and Putin demanded guarantees that Kyiv wouldn’t join NATO –- something Washington and its allies said was a nonstarter.

Another phone call between the two came in February 2022, less than two weeks before the full-scale invasion. Then the high-level contacts stopped cold, with no publicly disclosed conversations between them since the invasion.

Putin and Donald Trump

Putin met Trump met six times during the American’s first term -– at and on the sidelines of G20 and APEC gatherings — but most famously in Helsinki in July 2018. That’s where Trump stood next to Putin and appeared to accept his insistence that Moscow had not interfered with the 2016 US presidential election and openly questioned the firm finding by his own intelligence agencies.

His remarks were a stark illustration of Trump’s willingness to upend decades of US foreign policy and rattle Western allies in service of his political concerns.

“I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today,” Trump said. “He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be.”

Since Trump returned to the White House this year, he and Putin have had about a half-dozen publicly disclosed telephone conversations.

Putin and Barack Obama

US President Barack Obama met with Putin nine times, and there were 12 more meetings with Dmitry Medvedev, who served as president in 2008-12. Putin became prime minister in a move that allowed him to reset Russia’s presidential term limits and run again in 2012.

Obama traveled to Russia twice — once to meet Medvedev in 2009 and again for a G20 summit 2013. Medvedev and Putin also traveled to the US.

Under Medvedev, Moscow and Washington talked of “resetting” Russia-US relations post-Cold War and worked on arms control treaties. US State Secretary Hillary Clinton famously presented a big “reset” button to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at a meeting in 2009. One problem: instead of “reset” in Russian, they used another word meaning “overload.”

After Putin returned to office in 2012, tensions rose between the two countries. The Kremlin accused the West of interfering with Russian domestic affairs, saying it fomented anti-government protests that rocked Moscow just as Putin sought reelection. The authorities cracked down on dissent and civil society, drawing international condemnation.

Obama canceled his visit to Moscow in 2013 after Russia granted asylum to Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor and whistleblower.

In 2014, the Kremlin illegally annexed Crimea and threw its weight behind a separatist insurgency in eastern Ukraine. The US and its allies responded with crippling sanctions. Relations plummeted to the lowest point since the Cold War.

The Kremlin’s 2015 military intervention in Syria to prop up Bashar Assad further complicated ties. Putin and Obama last met in China in September 2016, on the sidelines of a G20 summit, and held talks focused on Ukraine and Syria.

Putin and George W. Bush

Putin and George W. Bush met 28 times during Bush’s two terms, according to the Russian state news agency Tass. They hosted each other for talks and informal meetings in Russia and the US, met regularly on the sidelines of international summits and forums, and boasted of improving ties between onetime rivals.

After the first meeting with Putin in 2001, Bush said he “looked the man in the eye” and “found him very straightforward and trustworthy,” getting “a sense of his soul.”

In 2002, they signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty -– a nuclear arms pact that significantly reduced both countries’ strategic nuclear warhead arsenal.

Putin was the first world leader to call Bush after the 9/11 terrorist attack, offering his condolences and support, and welcomed the US military deployment on the territory of Moscow’s Central Asian allies for action in Afghanistan.

He has called Bush “a decent person and a good friend,” adding that good relations with him helped find a way out of “the most acute and conflict situations.”

Putin and Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton traveled to Moscow in June 2000, less than a month after Putin was inaugurated as president for the first time in a tenure that has stretched to the present day.

The two had a one-on-one meeting, an informal dinner, a tour of the Kremlin from Putin, and attended a jazz concert. Their agenda included discussions on arms control, turbulence in Russia’s North Caucasus region, and the situation in the Balkans.

At a news conference the next day, Clinton said Russia under Putin “has the chance to build prosperity and strength, while safeguarding that freedom and the rule of law.”

The two also met in July of that same year at the G8 summit in Japan, in September — at the Millennium Summit at the UN headquarters in New York, and in November at the APEC summit in Brunei.

In an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson last year, Putin said he asked Clinton in 2000 if Russia could join NATO, and the US president reportedly said it was “interesting,” and, “I think yes,” but later backtracked and said it “wasn’t possible at the moment.” Putin used the anecdote to illustrate his point about the West’s hostility toward Russia, “a big country with its own opinion.”

“We just realized that they are not waiting for us there, that’s all. OK, fine,” he said.