ISIS Exposed: Beheadings, Slavery, and the Hellish Reality of Radical Islam (32 page)

With friends like these, who needs enemies? In the upside down world of President Obama, fire-breathing, terror-sponsoring radical Islamists like Turkey’s President Erdogan can be reasoned with and allied with to fight
against
terrorism.

It’s a strange principle, but how else to explain the Obama administration’s receptivity to the world’s number one state sponsor of terrorism pitching in to help battle ISIS in Iraq? Yes, Iran has undergone quite the image rehabilitation during President Obama’s time in office. Mind you, the Iranian regime continues to brazenly support U.S.-designated terrorist groups of all shapes and sizes, from its chief proxy Hezbollah to Hamas to Palestinian Islamic Jihad to al Qaeda and the Taliban.
⁵³
Tehran’s support
for Islamic jihadists worldwide stretches across the Sunni-Shia divide and bridges any ideological or theological differences for the greater “good” of destroying the “Little Satan,” Israel, and the “Great Satan,” the United States—goals to which Iran remains rabidly committed. To drive that point home, an Iranian general said in January 2015, “Our ideal is not [nuclear] centrifuges but the destruction of the White House and the annihilation of Zionism [Israel].”
⁵⁴
As for the said centrifuges, Iran also refuses to relinquish its nuclear program, which has placed the terror regime on the threshold of acquiring a nuclear bomb.
⁵⁵

The Obama administration’s response to this Iranian intransigence has been not only to give Iran repeated, undeserved extensions in ongoing nuclear talks with the P5+1 nations (the U.S, Britain, France, China, Russia, and Germany) but to raise hopes that Iran—which is clearly buying time and hoodwinking the West as it inches ever closer to nuclear weapons capability—can be a responsible actor on the world stage, despite every indication to the contrary. In a December 2014 interview with National Public Radio, President Obama said of the possibility of re-opening a U.S. embassy in Tehran, “I never say never, but I think these things have to go in steps.” He then went a step further, stating, “[The Iranians] have a path to break through that isolation and they should seize it. Because if they do, there’s incredible talent and resources and sophistication . . . inside of Iran, and it would be a very successful regional power that was also abiding by international norms and international rules, and that would be good for everybody.”
⁵⁶

Yes, I’m sure that the Israelis—not to mention Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt—believe that having (unapologetically genocidal, jihadist) Iran as a “very successful regional power” would be just grand. Don’t look now, but that’s exactly the reality the Obama administration seems determined to create—to the point that it has tacitly accepted an Iranian role in the fight against ISIS. According to the
Washington Post,
“the two nations’ arms-length alliance against the Islamic State is an uncomfortable reality”:

          
Iranian military involvement has dramatically increased in Iraq . . . as Tehran has delivered desperately needed aid to Baghdad in its fight against Islamic State militants, say U.S., Iraqi and Iranian sources. In the eyes of Obama administration officials, equally concerned about the rise of the brutal Islamist group, that’s an acceptable role—for now. . . . A senior Iranian cleric with close ties to Tehran’s leadership, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss security matters, said that since the Islamic State’s capture of much of northern Iraq in June, Iran has sent more than 1,000 military advisers to Iraq, as well as elite units, and has conducted airstrikes and spent more than $1 billion on military aid.
⁵⁷

Iran is not opposed to the Islamic State out of any sort of noble indignation over ISIS’s brutality or tactics (Iran itself executed 852 people during one recent eleven-month span).
⁵⁸
Rather, Iran sees ISIS as a direct challenge to its goal of regional supremacy—particularly since ISIS is hell-bent on removing any trace of Iran’s Shia brand of Islam from the Middle East. Iran, just like ISIS, desires to lead a confederation of Islamic nations (in Iran’s case an “Imamate,” or Shia-style caliphate, led by the Iranian Supreme Leader) that would confront Israel and the West. At the end of the day, ISIS and Iran, despite profound differences in some areas, are both notorious purveyors of terrorism that essentially want the same exact thing. Yet the Obama administration, by employing an all-carrot-and-no-stick strategy with Iran that would make Neville Chamberlain blush, has in effect decided to hand the keys of the Middle East over to the terror masters in Tehran—while conceding whatever territory Iran doesn’t gobble up to what has become Washington’s chief ally in the region, the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB movement across the region has unquestionably taken massive hits since 2013, and it is on life support in Egypt. But like jihadi vampires, the Brothers, throughout their bloody history, have always seemed to find a way to rise from the dead.

And the Obama administration’s policies may one day help them to do exactly that.

President Obama’s isolation of Israel and Egypt and embrace of Turkey, Qatar, and Iran is instructive as we consider the future of ISIS. If the United States, under the Obama administration, cannot distinguish between the enemies of Islamic terrorism and its supporters, little promises to change before the president leaves office in 2016. Indeed, the ISIS crisis—and the broader assault by global jihadists against the West—promises only to intensify in President Obama’s remaining years in office. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen repeatedly on the president’s watch, when it comes to matters of national and global security, a great amount of damage, some of it irreversible, can be inflicted in a short amount of time.

Here are some trends to watch for in the near future as ISIS continues its march across the Middle East—and its supporters multiply here in the West:

          
•
    
“Lone wolf” jihadi terrorism carried out by ISIS and al Qaeda sympathizers will remain a persistent and deadly problem for Western democracies. At the same time, Western citizens who have trained with ISIS in Syria and Iraq could very well return home under the direction of their terror overlords and conduct increasingly professional attacks against soft civilian targets as well as harder targets, including law enforcement and the military. The January 2015 terror attacks in France—carried out, in part, by two brothers who had trained with al Qaeda in
Yemen—is a frightening glimpse of what could be in store. Following those attacks, ISIS embarked on a wide-ranging social media campaign glorifying the carnage in France and calling on each Muslim in the West “to act as a ‘city wolf’ and kill co-workers and fellow commuters.”
⁵⁹
In other words, random attacks against random civilians in Western cities. Clearly, the eventual goal of the jihadists is nothing less than a full-scale guerilla war on Western soil.

          
•
    
If, as seems probable, terrorism in Europe increases and European governments continue to refuse to take the necessary steps to combat it, European citizens will become increasingly outraged. The culture clash between Europe and Islam could, in some cases, descend into violence between Europe’s large Muslim immigrant communities and the indigenous populations. Anti-Semitic violence in Europe will also continue to worsen, much of it at the hands of Muslim immigrants. And as European leaders show a lack of will to combat this ancient poison, Jews will leave the continent in increasing numbers. The exodus from France has already begun.

          
•
    
ISIS, while consolidating most of the areas already under its control, will continue to explore ways to expand its caliphate. Look for continued incursions into Lebanon and probing along the Jordanian and Saudi borders (which, as we saw in
chapter two
, is already happening). Jordan and Saudi Arabia would be tough nuts for ISIS to crack, and they can count on strong support from the U.S. (and Israel, in Jordan’s case) were the Islamic State to make serious moves inside their territory. Yes, even the impotent Obama administration would have no choice but to intervene (with no
ground troops, of course) to stave off an ISIS advance if Jordan or Saudi Arabia were threatened. After all, the Democrats have an election to win in 2016.

          
•
    
Again, especially if ISIS continues to stall in northern Iraq, look for it to embark on new adventures elsewhere, whether in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia (Mecca, Medina, and all that Saudi crude would suit the caliphate just fine), Jordan (all that separates ISIS from Israel), and Syria (as of this writing, ISIS continues to advance around Damascus and near the Israeli border). In addition, ISIS’s fierce battle to control Iraq’s Anbar province could be crucial in its plans to eventually turn its sights on Baghdad. In October 2014, ISIS made it within 15.5 miles of the Baghdad International Airport before being turned back
⁶⁰
—and it promises to continue to soften up the Iraqi capital through a campaign of shelling and suicide bombings.

          
•
    
Iran and the Iraqi Shia militias under its sway would fiercely resist any ISIS encroachment on the historic city, and they could count on heavy U.S. air support. Baghdad, needless to say, would be another very tough nut for ISIS to crack. But given the recent history of the Middle East, “never say never” is a good rule of thumb. It’s a safe bet that no one—save a gaggle of “experts” inside the Beltway—will be completely shocked if the black flag of ISIS was one day flying above Baghdad.

          
•
    
Look for ISIS to make a concerted effort to target U.S. forces in Iraq and shoot down Coalition planes in an attempt to nab hostages for propaganda value. As of this writing, ISIS was holding a Jordanian pilot whose plane had been shot down above Syria.
⁶¹

          
•
    
As the Obama administration withdraws U.S. troops from Afghanistan, it’s a good bet that the country will descend into Iraq-style chaos, with jihadists running amok. Ominously, in January 2015 a group of Pakistani and Afghan jihadists who formerly belonged to the Taliban beheaded a captured Afghan soldier in a gruesome video in which they pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.
⁶²
As of this writing, ISIS supporters had also reportedly made inroads in southern Afghanistan’s Helmand province.
⁶³
As we saw in
chapter two
, declarations of loyalty in diverse places around the world enable ISIS to establish caliphate satellites outside of its primary sphere of influence in Iraq and Syria. And as ISIS continues to achieve success, more followers will come.

          
•
    
The cyber-jihad against the West will intensify, especially as ISIS and other jihadi groups continue to draw in tech-savvy Western recruits. On January 12, 2015, ISIS sympathizers were apparently able to hack into social media accounts of the U.S. military’s Central Command, “posting threatening messages and propaganda videos, along with some military documents,” including “contact information for senior military personnel.”
⁶⁴

          
•
    
The intensity and savagery of Islamic terrorism will descend to increasingly demonic depths. ISIS’s audaciously violent emergence has seemingly inspired other Islamic terror groups to engage in greater and more shocking acts of carnage, including the Pakistani Taliban’s slaughter of 150 schoolchildren in December 2014 and the Nigerian terror group Boko Haram’s murder of some two thousand people in attacks across northern Nigeria in early January
2015.
⁶⁵
Jihadists clearly do not believe in limited rules of engagement.

The strategies we should be implementing against ISIS and the global jihadist movement—both at home and abroad—remain depressingly similar to the solutions I suggested in the conclusion to my 2013 book,
The Brotherhood,
with some obvious updates. One thing has not changed: the extreme unlikelihood of any of these changes being enacted prior to President Obama’s leaving office. Nevertheless, it’s important for well-informed and patriotic Americans to resolve to take the steps we must eventually take if the global jihad embodied today by ISIS is to be defeated:

          
•
    
Completely destroy ISIS militarily in Iraq and Syria so that it can never pose any semblance of a threat ever again. This would not only eliminate the most powerful terrorist movement in history—it would send a clear message to jihadists everywhere that the United States was through pulling punches and playing nice. I am not a military strategist. What I do know is that every credible military strategist I have spoken to, both on and off the record, over the past two years has told me unequivocally that ISIS cannot be totally defeated militarily without some level of involvement from U.S. ground forces—and in more than just an “advisory role.” Whatever it takes.