What can be done about the Islamic State group? This question, which has been plaguing the West and the Arab world for over a year, has become urgent and poignant since the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday. The answer seems far more complex than any of the versions suggested this week by the generals, pundits and experts interviewed on every media outlet. It extends beyond sheer military elements, and it requires a combined worldwide effort, comprising significant political and diplomatic action, complete with economic, legal, sociological, psychological, and technological measures. It is clear, however, that it will be impossible to eradicate Islamic State in one fell swoop and that mere boots on the ground storming the group's strongholds in the area between Iraq and Syria will not resolve the issue. If anything, the terrorist attacks in Paris have proved that Islamic State numbers more than a few thousand operatives across the Middle East and thousands more in Europe, but that its ideology has taken root in the hearts of millions. Refraining from taking drastic action now will only breed a new, far more vicious, mutation of jihadi terrorism. The West's assumptions that with the 2011 elimination of Osama bin Laden it effectively vanquished al-Qaida, and its subsequent lack of interest in other Middle East wars, have created a vacuum. Since nature abhors a vacuum, Islamic State and its vision of a global caliphate swooped in to fill it. Islamic State has made clever use of this vacuum, taking root in Iraq first and then penetrating Syria, from where it has been eyeing other countries in the region where the regimes have been undercut by the Arab Spring. Combine this savvy with a ruthless streak and impressive marketing capabilities, and you end up with a global super-brand that is overrunning territories, accumulating assets, and springing offshoots at a dizzying pace. Despite all this, the world has taken its time in dealing with Islamic State. The American-led coalition's airstrikes against the group's assets in Syria and Iraq may threaten its human and financial assets, but they fall short of threatening its existence, and the Russian gambit in Syria is really only meant to ensure that President Bashar Assad remains in power. The terrorist attacks of the last few weeks -- especially the Oct. 31 downing of Russia's Metrojet Flight 9268 over the Sinai Peninsula, which killed all 224 passengers and crew, and the Paris attacks, which claimed 129 lives and left 352 people wounded, 98 of whom are said to be in critical condition -- mandate that the West recalibrate its strategy. This adjustment is necessary not only because the horror has been exported from the Middle East to Europe, but because it has become abundantly clear that Islamic State has changed its strategy and has launched a global war. So far, Islamic State has focused on the Middle East: undermining existing regimes, cementing its hold on the areas seized, increasing its territorial reach, and asserting its influence on "provinces" such as Sinai, Libya, and Yemen, where it has loyal followers who enjoy its financial support. But something has changed, making the jihadi group shift its focus to the global theater. What was the catalyst? Was it the loss of territories to the Kurds in northern Iraq? Was it the desire to exact revenge on Russia and the West over their airstrikes? Or perhaps it was that the group simply reached operational maturity, giving it the tactical ability to carry out such attacks? The reason is less important than the fact that the global onslaught now mandates that the international community mount a counter-strike. Do not reward terrorism So what can be done about Islamic State? Whatever the answer may be, it must be multi-tiered, and only a combination of a vast array of measures, whose execution will be coordinated and prolonged, can counter the group's onslaught. From a military perspective, there is little doubt that a ground operation is necessary. Though relatively small, Islamic State is entrenched in the region and its operatives are highly skilled, making it impossible to defeat it solely with airstrikes. Putting boots on the ground will be vital, but no country -- Arab or Western -- has so far volunteered to send troops to the Middle East. Only a coalition led by the moderate Arab nations, which are equally concerned by Islamic State's future intentions, could successfully lead such measures. From a financial perspective, the West must target the group's substantial monetary reserves, comprising oil revenues, tax collection, ransom payments, and commerce. The global community must take coordinated steps to systematically stifle Islamic State's cash flow, thereby undermining its ability to fund its war. From a legal perspective, international and European laws must be adapted to meet new realities. The world is stuck with codes put in place following World War II, and the European Union is saddled with laws befitting the optimistic vision of an open continent, free of borders and threats. Those seeking to eradicate terrorism must impose certain limitations and restrict certain freedoms, to provide law enforcement agencies with the tools necessary to gather intelligence, detain and interrogate suspects, seize assets and foil terrorist plots -- just as we do in Israel. From an intelligence perspective, there is a need for international collaboration, one that would allow for surveillance and detection of terrorists and weapons. The investigation into the Paris attacks had found that far too little was known and far less was done. Removing bureaucratic obstacles is a must if the West is to thwart future attacks and conduct the mass arrests of potential terrorists, who are currently traveling freely between Europe and the Middle East. From a psychological perspective, the world is hysterical. Closing tourist attractions, canceling sporting events, postponing flights -- these measures only reward terrorism. Europe has to pull itself together, tighten security and make it a point to show the terrorists that life goes on, despite everything. Otherwise, Islamic State has already won. From a sociological perspective, Europe must find a way to deal with its minorities and to provide millions of frustrated immigrants with answers, as well as a chance for a better future. It must, however, also set very clear boundaries for them and for itself, about what will and will not be tolerated. This will take courage, which seems to finally be budding among European leaders. From a technological perspective, Islamic State has made a mockery of its rivals by outperforming them on social media, which is where it operates, recruits supporters, and relays instructions to its operatives. While the West must improve its cyber surveillance capabilities, social media platforms must also be subjected to stricter regulation. Facebook, Google, Twitter and their counterparts cannot be allowed to spread terrorist propaganda. From a political-diplomatic perspective, one must remember that Islamic State was formed in Iraq because of the Sunni frustration over the loss of hegemony to the Shiites, and took hold in Syria because the Sunni majority has tired of decades of Alawite rule -- problems that will remain in place even if the jihadi group is eradicated. The situation requires a novel approach, and perhaps even a new distribution of the area, but not according to the familiar geographical key. Perhaps it is time to divide the area according to ethnicity, delineating a Shiite state in western Iraq, a Sunni state in eastern Iraq and some of western Syria, an Alawite state in western Syria, and a Kurdish state in northern Iraq. This, of course, would require an international gambit, similar to the one taken ahead of the dissolution of Yugoslavia. While it is doubtful these measures could solve the problem completely, they could significantly undercut it. Unfortunately, only a handful of measures are taken at this point, and the brutal conflict will likely become even bloodier before real steps are taken.
