Southeast Asia: The New Terrorist Destination

Government troops waged a four-month battle against ISIS in the city of Marawi, Philippines. (Reuters)
Government troops waged a four-month battle against ISIS in the city of Marawi, Philippines. (Reuters)
TT
20

Southeast Asia: The New Terrorist Destination

Government troops waged a four-month battle against ISIS in the city of Marawi, Philippines. (Reuters)
Government troops waged a four-month battle against ISIS in the city of Marawi, Philippines. (Reuters)

It seems that Southeast Asia may be the new destination of terrorists, who have suffered a series of defeats in Iraq and Syria. The leaders of these organizations have indeed started to transfer what remains of their funds and members to several of the region’s countries.

The first question we should ask is whether Southeast Asia is the only option available to ISIS and other extremist groups or are there other destinations that can become the base for their resurgent terror attacks around the world?

Africa definitely remains the second choice to become a base for terror training camps and the recruitment of new ISIS and al-Qaida members. The ground there, however, does not seem ready to receive these terrorists due to various factors that we will not get into.

Southeast Asia however enjoys the geographic and demographic elements that make it an exemplary choice that would compensate these two organizations the losses they have suffered in the Middle East.

Attractive region for terror

An in-depth exploration reveals that there are several factors that make Southeast Asia a suitable environment for future terrorism. The first of these factors is the high population density of the majority of these countries, especially Indonesia that has a population of 260 million. There, ISIS can easily win over thousands of sympathizers and gain new recruits.

The geography there is rife with tens of thousands of small islands that act as fortresses and caches for fugitive terrorists.

This is compounded by a lack of security coordination between Southeast Asian countries, which is in contrast to the coordination between extremist groups there, most notably those in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines.

Furthermore, the poverty in those countries makes it easy for extremists to lure recruits with the promise of financial rewards. Racial and sectarian discrimination suffered by the Muslim youth also make them easy prey for terrorist recruitment and brainwashing.

The Philippines and Hapilon’s death

The clashes between the Philippine military and ISIS in the city of Marawi have drawn attention to the rise of the terrorist threat in Southeast Asia. The Philippine defense minister announced in October that ISIS chief in Southeast Asia and Abou Sayyaf group leader Isnilon Hapilon was killed in the clashes. He was blacklisted by the United States as one of its most wanted terrorists.

The four-month Marawi battle, where ISIS seized four neighborhoods, highlighted fears that the group would seek to establish a regional base south of the archipelago, reported Agence France Presse.

How did ISIS infiltrate Catholic-majority Philippines and not other predominantly Muslim Middle Eastern or Asian countries?

A report by the Stratfor American geopolitical intelligence platform examines how ISIS inspired Hapilon to unite in 2014 the ranks of extremist organizations in the region under the ISIS banner. Stratfor said these organizations as a blend of local criminal gangs operating under the guise of “jihad”. Hapilon and other extremist leaders in the Philippines gained in the meantime recognition by operating under the ISIS name and adopting its tactics.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Philippines’ southern Mindanao island is its strategic location on the marine border with Indonesia and Malaysia. This makes it a prime destination for Indonesian and Malaysian extremist fugitives.

The Rohingya crisis and Asian terror

One of the most important questions that is being raised recently is whether the arrival of extremists in Southeast Asia is connected to the suffering Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslims are enduring at the hands of the Buddhist government.

We have definitely detected serious ISIS, Qaida and other extremist attempts to portray the developments in Myanmar as a war against Islam and Muslims. They have all come to agree that Myanmar will become the scene of the major battle, said Jay Solomon of the Washington Institute for Near East policy.

This was demonstrated in a statement released in September by the Qaida higher command that called on all “jihadist brothers in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and the Philippines to head to Myanmar to aid our Muslim brothers.” It urged them to “make the necessary preparations, including training and the like, to resist this oppression and injustice.”

In a separate statement, Qaida’s Shura council declared that Buddhists had occupied Rakhine state from where Islam was spread to Burma some 200 years ago. Buddhists then changed Burma’s name to Myanmar where its Muslim population was oppressed.

Does this mean that Qaida is more present in Myanmar than ISIS?

In order to properly read the Southeast Asian extremist scene, we must address the security and political developments there and the rise of fundamentalism.

As the Rohingya crisis escalated, Buddhists and their embassies throughout the Middle East and Southeast Asia came under attack. In September, molotov bottles were thrown at the Myanmar embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia. This prompted police in Pakistan to bolster security around Myanmar diplomatic missions in Islamabad.

In Bangladesh, officials said that they have not yet witnessed the arrival of foreign fighters to support the Rohingya, but they have confirmed that the threat is very high.

The above all means that “jihadist” groups have learned how to exploit civil wars and social unrest to spread their roots and raise the number of their recruits.

The crisis has reached such a dire point that a senior Bangladeshi official declared that the situation in Myanmar is a “man-made disaster.”

Qaida returns to the fray

The most disturbing analyses of the developments in Southeast Asia said that the situation has gone beyond ISIS and instead brought al-Qaida back into the picture.

Several security, counter-terrorism and intelligence officials in the region stated that various Qaida branches in the islands surrounding Myanmar had in recent years trained Rohingya on “jihad”.

The Qaida problem here is greater than the Rohingya crisis. It is seeking to regain from ISIS the top spot as the most dangerous extremist group. But why is Southeast Asia such an important strategic target for it?

The area has never been free of pro-Qaida groups and it still retains sleeper cells that can play a very dangerous role should they be ordered to act. In addition, Qaida knows that the United States has a historic military presence in Southeast Asia, which makes their positions strategic targets. Furthermore, observers will notice that Southeast Asia is a main passage for the world’s oil trade, making it another Qaida target.

This prompted the American Foreign Affairs magazine to ask if Qaida will make a return to the scene.

It essentially said that the US was too preoccupied with defeating ISIS to notice that al-Qaida was regrouping. Observers in the report wondered if it will achieve its goal of once again being labeled as the most dangerous terrorist group. Some stated however that the US and other countries were effective in their war against terrorism, giving them reason to believe that al-Qaida was in real and constant decline.

Upcoming terror

It is certain that Southeast Asia may be confronted with a threat that is worse than al-Qaida and ISIS. Foreign Affairs said that the organization is different than what it was a decade ago and Southeast Asia may witness the rise of al-Qaida under a new form, one which brings together ISIS’ orphans who are longing to avenge their humiliating losses in the Middle East.

Their arrival in Southeast Asia is connected to stability and political unrest and extremist radical ideology will never be eliminated as long as social injustice remains and conflicts and wars in Asia, Africa and the Middle East rage on.



What to Know about the Tensions between Iran and the US before Their Third Round of Talks

The flags of US and Iran are displayed in Muscat, Oman, 25 April 2025. Iran and US will hold third round of nuclear talks on 26 April 2025, in Muscat. (EPA)
The flags of US and Iran are displayed in Muscat, Oman, 25 April 2025. Iran and US will hold third round of nuclear talks on 26 April 2025, in Muscat. (EPA)
TT
20

What to Know about the Tensions between Iran and the US before Their Third Round of Talks

The flags of US and Iran are displayed in Muscat, Oman, 25 April 2025. Iran and US will hold third round of nuclear talks on 26 April 2025, in Muscat. (EPA)
The flags of US and Iran are displayed in Muscat, Oman, 25 April 2025. Iran and US will hold third round of nuclear talks on 26 April 2025, in Muscat. (EPA)

Iran and the United States will hold talks Saturday in Oman, their third round of negotiations over Tehran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program.

The talks follow a first round held in Muscat, Oman, where the two sides spoke face to face. They then met again in Rome last weekend before this scheduled meeting again in Muscat.

Trump has imposed new sanctions on Iran as part of his “maximum pressure” campaign targeting the country. He has repeatedly suggested military action against Iran remained a possibility, while emphasizing he still believed a new deal could be reached by writing a letter to Iran’s 85-year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to jumpstart these talks.

Khamenei has warned Iran would respond to any attack with an attack of its own.

Here’s what to know about the letter, Iran’s nuclear program and the tensions that have stalked relations between Tehran and Washington since the 1979 revolution.

Why did Trump write the letter? Trump dispatched the letter to Khamenei on March 5, then gave a television interview the next day in which he acknowledged sending it. He said: “I’ve written them a letter saying, ‘I hope you’re going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing.’”

Since returning to the White House, the president has been pushing for talks while ratcheting up sanctions and suggesting a military strike by Israel or the US could target Iranian nuclear sites.

A previous letter from Trump during his first term drew an angry retort from the supreme leader.

But Trump’s letters to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in his first term led to face-to-face meetings, though no deals to limit Pyongyang’s atomic bombs and a missile program capable of reaching the continental US.

How did the first round go? Oman, a sultanate on the eastern edge of the Arabian Peninsula, hosted the first round of talks between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff. The two men met face to face after indirect talks and immediately agreed to this second round in Rome.

Witkoff later made a television appearance in which he suggested 3.67% enrichment for Iran could be something the countries could agree on. But that’s exactly the terms set by the 2015 nuclear deal struck under US President Barack Obama, from which Trump unilaterally withdrew America.

Witkoff hours later issued a statement underlining something: “A deal with Iran will only be completed if it is a Trump deal.” Araghchi and Iranian officials have latched onto Witkoff’s comments in recent days as a sign that America was sending it mixed signals about the negotiations.

Yet the Rome talks ended up with the two sides agreeing to starting expert-level talks this Saturday. Analysts described that as a positive sign, though much likely remains to be agreed before reaching a tentative deal.

Why does Iran’s nuclear program worry the West? Iran has insisted for decades that its nuclear program is peaceful. However, its officials increasingly threaten to pursue a nuclear weapon. Iran now enriches uranium to near weapons-grade levels of 60%, the only country in the world without a nuclear weapons program to do so.

Under the original 2015 nuclear deal, Iran was allowed to enrich uranium up to 3.67% purity and to maintain a uranium stockpile of 300 kilograms (661 pounds). The last report by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran’s program put its stockpile at 8,294.4 kilograms (18,286 pounds) as it enriches a fraction of it to 60% purity.

US intelligence agencies assess that Iran has yet to begin a weapons program, but has “undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so.”

Ali Larijani, an adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, has warned in a televised interview that his country has the capability to build nuclear weapons, but it is not pursuing it and has no problem with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspections. However, he said if the US or Israel were to attack Iran over the issue, the country would have no choice but to move toward nuclear weapon development.

“If you make a mistake regarding Iran’s nuclear issue, you will force Iran to take that path, because it must defend itself,” he said.

Why are relations so bad between Iran and the US? Iran was once one of the US’s top allies in the Middle East under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who purchased American military weapons and allowed CIA technicians to run secret listening posts monitoring the neighboring Soviet Union. The CIA had fomented a 1953 coup that cemented the shah’s rule.

But in January 1979, the shah, fatally ill with cancer, fled Iran as mass demonstrations swelled against his rule. The revolution followed, led by Khomeini, and created Iran’s theocratic government.

Later that year, university students overran the US Embassy in Tehran, seeking the shah’s extradition and sparking the 444-day hostage crisis that saw diplomatic relations between Iran and the US severed. The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s saw the US back Saddam Hussein. The “Tanker War” during that conflict saw the US launch a one-day assault that crippled Iran at sea, while the US later shot down an Iranian commercial airliner that the American military said it mistook for a warplane.

Iran and the US have see-sawed between enmity and grudging diplomacy in the years since, with relations peaking when Tehran made the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. But Trump unilaterally withdrew America from the accord in 2018, sparking tensions in the Middle East that persist today.