The shifting tides of extremism

On Sunday this week, Hezbollah and the Lebanese army finished capturing the Arsal mountains in eastern Lebanon, a swathe of territory spanning several hundred kilometers along the border with Syria which in recent years has been controlled by Islamic State and the Nusra Front as a launching pad for terrorist attack inside Lebanon. The last remnant of ISIS was eradicated from Lebanon and Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah was quick to reap the fruits by regaling his supporters with comparisons to the IDF's withdrawal from south Lebanon in May 2000.

We must admit, however, that Nasrallah had reason to be celebrate, because for many people the victory over ISIS bolstered his image as the "defender of Lebanon" against the threat from the extremist Sunni group and others similar to it.

Even before victory over ISIS was declared in Lebanon, the Syrian army, aided by Russia and Iran, was able to dislodge ISIS from its last remaining strongholds in western Syria, around the city of Homs in the country's center, and Sweida province in the south. Syrian President Bashar Assad's army even began its advance toward Deir ez-Zor, the most important city in the country's east.

To round out the picture, reports from Baghdad on Sunday said the Iraqi army completed its conquest of Tal Afar in the country's west, the last ISIS-held city in Iraq.

Islamic State's dream of a regional caliphate, therefore, has disintegrated. In a matter of months, the empire it sought to establish across an area spanning hundreds of thousands of kilometers, larger than the size of Great Britain or France, has crumbled. The root cause of Islamic State's failure was its uncompromising and unrestrained extremism, which not only angered but united the entire world against it. Credit for success in the fight against ISIS, however, can only go to the Americans. In the fight to defeat the Sunni group, the world witnessed both the greatness and weakness of Washington. On one hand, the U.S. has an awe-inspiring ability to execute large-scale, complex military operations; but at the same time it lacks a comprehensive strategy for the "day after" to secure the fruits of victory for it and its allies.

The Americans pummeled and incapacitated a large number of Islamic State's institutions from the air. More importantly, on the ground they were able to rally localized forces around them to destroy the ISIS regime with American military support. Only after ISIS lost its power centers and its quasi-state had collapsed, were Hezbollah and the Lebanese army, not to mention the Syrian army, able to banish the group's fighters from their remaining strongholds in western Syria and along the border with Lebanon.

This fact didn't stop Nasrallah, Assad or any of their other allies from accrediting themselves for the victory over ISIS. Assad outdid even himself last week, claiming the Americans not only failed to contribute to Islamic State's downfall, but actually supported and were responsible for its rise to prominence.

It turns out, however, that Washington has no strategy for the day after Islamic State's demise, and is essentially willing to hand Moscow the keys to Syria so that it can ensure stability and calm in the country. This apparently comes at the price of Assad retaining power. Iran's continued presence throughout Syria, even if the border area with Israel is currently off-limits, is apparently also part of this American-Russian package deal.

The fall of ISIS, therefore, only means that the previous threat looming over Jordan and Israel is now being replaced by the far more significant threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו