The deadly terrorist attack in California last weekend, in which 14 Americans lost their lives, is proof that even when trying to disengage from the Middle East and its array of crises and problems, the Middle East finds a way of chasing you to your doorstep. But even in light of the latest terrorist attack the American administration is struggling to call the child by its name and define the essence of the problem with which the Western world is currently contending -- radical Islamic terror, which has many faces, the Islamic State group being only one. In a speech to the American people earlier this week, President Barack Obama promised that the U.S. would destroy Islamic State and boasted that U.S. airstrikes were pummeling the group. In the same breath, however, he warned against getting dragged into an extended ground war in Syria. It appears though that despite the president's fiery tone, the fight he is waging against ISIS is basically a virtual public relations campaign. It is a fight more directed at public opinion in the West and the United States, and less at ISIS. It is clear to everyone that ISIS will not be defeated from the air and that if a local ground force can't be found to hit it, the group will continue to operate from the safety of its strongholds in Syria and Iraq. The problem is that all vacuums are destined to be filled. Thus Moscow is filling the space left vacant in the region by Washington. The Russian presence in the region poses several problems for Israel, but also for other moderate Arab states. Firstly, the Russians did not come to Syria to fight ISIS, but to save Bashar Assad. The campaign against ISIS, from their perspective, can wait until Assad's regime is secured and the moderate rebels opposed to him are eradicated. Secondly, the more serious problem is that in order to save Assad the Russians have forged an alliance with Iran; and, even if indirectly, with Hezbollah as well. This reality is reminiscent of the early 2000s, when Iran was facing two dogged enemies -- from the east, the Taliban in Afghanistan; and from the west, the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But over a three-year period the Americans wiped out both of Tehran's enemies. In 2001 the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban, and in 2003 it invaded Iraq and dislodged Saddam Hussein from power. These American moves were justified and necessary in light of the Saddam regime's murderous nature and history, and following the Sept. 11 attacks carried out by al-Qaida. The group's leader, Osama bin Laden, had been conducting operations safely and securely from his bases inside Afghanistan. The Americans, however, not only failed to finish the job, but by eliminating Iran's enemies they allowed it to become a regional power menacing the entire Middle East. The Americans are currently making the same mistake again. In the name of the war against ISIS, which they have abandoned to the Russians, they are allowing the axis of evil -- Iran, Syria and Hezbollah -- to raise its head again. After all, the long-term beneficiary of Russian intervention in the region will be Iran, which, of course, like Hezbollah, is a local force with a ground presence capable of sustaining losses, unlike the Russians. Iran and Hezbollah are supposedly not like ISIS. By signing the nuclear deal with the West, Tehran, led by President Hassan Rouhani, has returned to the family of nations as a desired partner in the war against Sunni Islamic terror. From Israel's perspective, however, this poses a clear and present danger. Not just because of Iran's nuclear project, but mainly the tens of thousands of rockets Iran has transferred to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Whether in rhetoric or action, neither Iran nor Hezbollah are any different from ISIS, from Israel's point of view. While they do have interests obligating them to a modicum of pragmatism, the chants of "death to Israel" are still encouraged in the streets of Tehran by the Islamic republic's supreme leader. In Lebanon, meanwhile, Hezbollah is diligently working on upgrading its arsenal of missiles, pointed at Israel. Therefore, without an American presence in the region and in light of Washington's fire sale to the Russians, which for their own reasons have called on their Iranian subcontractor, the challenge for Israel appears clear. Jerusalem would do well to formulate a comprehensive strategy to contend with the emerging regional reality.
