With ISIS having lost around 98% of its territory, its proclaimed caliphate is in near defeat. But is it defeated? To answer that question, brings about a few more questions that we will explore. As with al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, where is the Islamic State’s famed leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi? Is he dead as the Russians claim, or is he deep in hiding as Osama bin Laden was for 10 years. Lastly, we will look at if he is dead, does it even matter? All questions that must be considered to evaluate ISIS and the global face of terrorism moving forward.

Russian airstrikes in mid-2017 placed a large death scare revolving around Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, with the Russians claiming that they were 99% confident they had killed him. The U.S. military made no official statement regarding his death, as they stated there was a significant lack of evidence to support that claim. General Stephen Townsend was even quoted as saying “It’d make me feel better to know that he was dead….I suppose it probably doesn’t really matter”.

In September of 2017, Baghdadi broke his silence with a 46 minute audio recording. The recording mocked the U.S., rallied remaining troops against Assad’s regime, and stated they would remain even after the loss of their territory. This message proved the air strikes in May did in fact not kill al-Baghdadi. Along with the fact that ISIS did not announce and mourn his death, as well as appoint a successor.

Another year has gone by, and al-Baghdadi again disappeared with complete silence. That is until last week. Baghdadi released a 55 minute audio speech for the first time in nearly a year. He called on his followers to continue the fight despite recent defeats. He praised recent attacks in Canada and Europe, and congratulated Muslims for the Eid al-Adha festival and feast that week. So those references again proved the message to be recently recorded within the last two weeks.

He was quoted as saying “for hardship comes a relief and a way out”. As well as urging those to “trust in promises and His victory” and reassuring them “scale of victory or defeat is not dependent on a city or town”. This was a tactic many saw coming.

Going forward, with Baghdadi still at the helm, ISIS will be able to frame their defeat with a unique religious spin. They can use the concept of Hijrah. It gives them a sort of ideological firepower, where defeat can be marketed as hardship, martyrdom, and only temporary. Hijrah is the concept of strategic withdraw and removal from a situation where you are against insurmountable odds. This originated with the Prophet Muhammed when he fled Mecca for Medina after losing battles. He was then able years later to return and retake Mecca. The day of his “flight” or Hijrah, was in 622AD and is the start of the first day of the Islamic calendar. So, this struggle is seen as a test from Allah, creating a temporary setback. A religious means to not seem weak or that they are giving up. They have even begun to market their flag as not representing ownership of a specific piece of land or area, but as claiming sovereignty over whatever area the black flag fly’s above. So they believe they have entered Hijrah and will come back victorious once their test is completed.

So with Baghdadi being alive, it makes one wonder if it would matter if he had been killed? One difference between the Islamic State’s Baghdadi and Al-Qaeda’s Bin Laden, is the interaction with the public. Al-Baghdadi has only ever made one public appearance since taking over as the group’s leader, and that was 4 years ago in 2014 when he announced himself as the new caliph. As we’ve mentioned, his audio statements are less frequent as well, coming about a year apart. ISIS is much more decentralized than al-Qaeda was, and Baghdadi being the public face is not necessary.

If he was to be killed, it might affect morale, but it would probably have little impact on the day-to-day operations of the organization. The Islamic State is being run behind the scenes by former military officials who served under Saddam Hussein, and other loyalists to his regime. With most likely candidates being Iyad al-Obaidi or Ayad al-Jumaili. Both have been his top two lieutenants since many top leadership officials were killed in airstrikes in 2016. Most of these officials were held within American prisons in the mid-2000’s, where they met many jihadists fighters forming long lasting relationships.

It would even turn him into a martyr for his supporters, and evaluate him to an even higher status. His successor doesn’t even need to possess the high level of credentials he had, with a PhD in Islamic studies and a descendent of the Prophet Muhammed. His legitimacy is uniquely tied to him, and how he resurrected the organization. He will be known as the man who occupied a territory the size of Great Britain consisting of 1/3 of Iraq and half of Syria.

ISIS leaders are likely hiding in the Middle Euphrates River Valley border area between Iraq and Syria. This is an area controlled by Russia and Iran, and harder for the US to deal with. Additionally, ISIS still has access to oil in northern Syria, and can stage hit and run attacks from these lawless border areas. They are still believed to be making millions from extortion, oil, kidnapping, and taxes.

The Pentagon and Department of Defense recently released statements that the Islamic state is “well-positioned” to rise again. The Defense Department’s Intelligence Report even states that ISIS still has 28,000-32,000 fighters remaining, spread across both Iraq and Syria. This number is quite a bit higher than we thought. They had previously said that ISIS at its peak in 2015 was 33,000 soldiers. So obviously, one of them was incorrect. After the U.S. has invested 4 years of time, $14.3 billion, and 24,566 air strikes, hopefully they are not at the same level they were in 2015.

Thousands of fighters won’t just go away. They will revamp their tactics into other violent strategies, and in other destabilized areas such as Afghanistan, Libya, and sub-Saharan Africa. With the very real possibility that they once again reconcile and rejoin al-Qaeda. Even though being scattered weakens their chances to launch offensives, remain unified, and less training, they can still wreak havoc. Even just within recent weeks they have assassinated local government officials, blown up pipe lines and electrical grids, hijacked trucks, and killed 100’s in bombings. They seem to have regained a bit of momentum this summer.

As well as more coordinated attacks than just the lone wolf type that generally gets discussed as being their new strategy. Before the Islamic State ever even controlled territory in a caliphate they planned and pulled off large attacks, so there is no doubt that they still can after the loss of their caliphate. In Europe between 2014 and 2016, there were 38 terrorist plots. Only 6 of them were carried out by one individual. They are normally organized and orchestrated by cells and networks. Lone wolf attacks are actually quite rare. Even ISIS inspired attacks in the US have come with the attacker having communicated online with ISIS personnel.

Even in liberated areas, decades old disputes between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds still remain. To the point where the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in northern Iraq is in territory disputes with the Iraqi government. Now will come the part where towns must be rebuilt, and hundreds of thousands of displaced individuals must be brought back. The lack of government help for rebuilding infrastructure such as electrical and water stations, and other forms of reconstruction, can also fuel another ISIS comeback. In 2017 the U.S. State Department asked for hundreds of millions to help with reconstruction costs, and Saudi Arabia recently pledged funds for that process as well. Just two weeks ago President Trump announced that he is ending the $230 million in civilian funds for Syria. The U.S. is in a tough situation. Funds to help stabilize and rebuild the country will help to oppress ISIS, but also been seen as a support to President Bashar al-Assad and his victorious regime. This has allowed countries like Russia and Iran to invest in rebuilding costs because they don’t mind supporting Assad. The Trump administration stated the withdrawing of our funding will be offset by $300 million from Gulf states, mainly Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. has a complicated tightrope to walk. National security is moving from non-state actors such as ISIS and al-Qaeda to state actors such as Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia. As Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS Brett McGurk recently put it, the final U.S. phase will be “a very significant military operation because we have a significant number of ISIS fighters holed up in a Final area of the Middle Euphrates Valley”. So this mission is not over, and ISIS has not gone away. And with both Iraq and Syria still destabilized, this issue will continue to be a focal point of U.S. International relations and a matter of national security.

Sources:
Austin, Henry, “Isis losses are test from Allah says leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in ‘new recording’”, independent.co.uk, 08/23/2018
Cafarella, Jennifer; Kassim, Omer, Najjam, Malik, “The “War After ISIS” begins in Iraq”, understandingwar.org, 10/15/2017
Calamur, Krishnadev, “The U.S. Will Spend Billions in Syria – Just Not on Rebuilding It, theatlantic.com, 08/20/2018
Chmaytelli, Maher, “If Baghdadi is dead, next IS leader likely to be Saddam-era officer”, reuters.com, 06/23/2017
Hassan, Hassan, “ISIS may be on its knees but it will rise again if we don’t break the cycle”, theguardian.com, 07/15/2017
Hassan, Hassan, “The fate of ISIL does not depend on the survival of Al Baghdadi”, thenational.ae, 07/12/2017
Hassan, Hassan; Young, Michael, “What’s Next in Deir Ezzor?”, carnegie-mec.org, 09/22/2017
Kadercan, Burak, “Defeat as victory? How the Islamic State will rely on Hijrah to claim a win”, warontherocks.com, 10/13/2017
Lister, Tim; Sciutto, Jim; Balkiz, Ghazi; Callahan, Michael, “ISIS leader seemingly breaks 11-month silence in audio recording”, cnn.com, 09/22/2017
Seldin, Jeff, “Islamic State ‘Well Positioned’ to Rebuild Caliphate”, voanews.com, 08/16/2018
Sly, Liz; Schwan, Aaso Ameen, “ISIS is near defeat in Iraq, now comes the hard part”, washingtonpost.com, 09/13/2017
Soufan, Ali, “Can You Kill the Islamic State”, nytimes.com, 06/20/2017
Weiss, Michael, “The surprising reality of the ISIS threat”, cnn.com, 09/01/2017
Williams, Jennifer, “The Pentagon says ISIS is “well-positioned” to make a comeback”, vox.com, 08/17/2018

In recent weeks we’ve heard a lot of discussion surrounding NATO. Is it good, is it bad, is it effective, is it outdated? In this article we are going to take a look at a bit of the history of NATO, how it functions, and its current activities.

First of all, NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is an international military alliance between 29 countries across Europe and North America (US/Canada). It was formed in 1949, in the rebuilding aftermath of WWII. Its creation was necessary to prevent against a resurgent Germany and the rise and spread of the Soviet Union, as well as helping to rebuild European countries who had been devastated.

President Truman wanted to provide economic and military aid to Greece and Turkey who were being subjugated, increase military spending, and a peacetime draft. Additionally, he wanted a military alliance with western Europe that would adhere to the United Nations Charter, but be outside of the rules of the UN Security Council, where the Soviet Union had permanent veto power. Congress passed the military assistance package, which included $1.4 billion to help rebuild western Europe. With the Berlin Crisis in full swing, and the city divided in half, and the signing of the Brussels Treaty in 1949 for the collective defense of Europe, the North American Treaty Organization was officially born and included 12 founding countries.

The early 1950’s brought on the start of the Cold War and Soviet aggression. NATO was intended to be in place so that any attack on one member, was an attack on the whole, and others were obligated to defend that member. That measure is known as NATO Article V. So, NATO was even more vital during this time period. The Soviet Union never did attack a NATO member nation, and NATO continued to grow to more countries during this time.

After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO now needed a new direction. President Clinton was faced with a decision on which way the U.S. would go in the future of NATO. He voiced his favor for the expansion of NATO, and former soviet controlled countries were admitted.

The majority of threats to Europe now lay outside of NATO member country’s borders. They would now have to focus on countering instability outside of their membership. When the former country of Yugoslavia started to break up in 1992, they would get their first chance. Violent conflict was occurring in Bosnia and Herzegovina and NATO stepped in to enforce no fly zones. April 1995 saw NATO engage in their first combat operations, when they shot down 4 Bosnian Serb planes.

In 1999, NATO entered Kosovo to help stop widespread violence and killings. Then in 2001, NATO evoked the first use of their Article V, an attack on one member is an attack on all. With the horrific terrorist attack on September 11th, NATO was now in a position to help defend an attacked nation. The UN created the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, and NATO took over operation of that force in 2003. Additionally, in October of 2001 NATO also participated in its first ever counter-terrorism operation, Operation Eagle Assist. This program lasted from October 2001 until May 2002 as 830 crew members from 13 NATO countries flew 360 missions in radar aircraft patrolling over United States’ skies every day for a total of 4,300 hours. This is also the first time NATO was ever used on U.S. soil. This operation freed up American radar aircraft to go fly missions in Afghanistan.

This would not be the end of NATO’s presence in the greater Middle East. NATO assisted the Iraqi Security Forces after the U.S. invasion of Iraq and remained there from 2004-2011. From 2008 to 2016 NATO conducted anti-piracy missions off the Horn of Africa. They then commanded all military operations in Libya starting in 2011 after the fall of Gadhafi and the Libyan government. In addition to primarily being in Afghanistan, they currently operate security patrols to deter terrorist activity in the Mediterranean Sea, and support African forces in Somalia against terrorist groups on peacekeeping missions.

NATO is also still in Kosovo. They are assisting the newly independent country set up a security force of their own. When the International Security Assistance Force mission was ended in 2014, NATO began non-combat support and training of Afghan forces for operation Resolute Support which still continues today. U.S. forces make up half of the NATO forces that conduct Operation Resolute Support in Afghanistan.

Russia still sees NATO as a threat, and Europe currently sees Russia as its most threatening since the Cold War. Russia’s invasion of Georgia, its annexation of Crimea, and destabilization of Ukraine is further evidence to support those feelings. And NATO’s expansion to eastern European countries bothers Russia a great deal.

Criticism of NATO seems to always stem from spending. Both President George W. Bush and President Obama criticized member states spending, and President Trump has most recently voiced displeasure with the spending of other countries versus the U.S. NATO members spend around $900 billion a year on defense, but the U.S. spends 70% of that total, or more than $600 billion. Each member is required to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense, but only 6 of the 29 countries do, with again the U.S. as the largest with 3.6% of our GDP.

Last year, NATO members spending increased by 4.3%. This is in part due to U.S. pressure, and fears of Russian expansion and hostility. At the NATO summit in Brussels two weeks ago, NATO members agreed to increase spending by $33 billion. Increases are necessary to help lessen the burden on the U.S. to continue propping up the alliance. An increase in commitment and accountability must follow. A weakening of NATO, and divisions between member countries, will only empower an already aggressive Russia. This is an important time for NATO, and it will be interesting to see how the U.S. handles the alliance in the coming year.

Sources:

Collinson, Stephen, “Trump is not the first US President to bemoan NATO spending…but no one did it like this”, CNN.com, 07/04/2018

Continetti, Matthew, “Why NATO Matters”, 07/21/2018, nationalreview.com

Fritze, John, “What is NATO and why is President Trump Slamming It?”, 07/12/2018, usatoday.com

Lake, Emma; Mullin, Gemma, “How has the role of the worlds largest military alliance changed”, 07/12/2018, thesun.co.uk

Masters, Jonathan, “What is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)?”, pbs.org, 07/11/2018

Miller, S.A., “Mission accomplished: Trump says NATO members agree to spend more on defense”, 07/12/2018, washingtontimes.com

“North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 1949”, Office of the Historian, US Department of State, history.state.gov

Smith, Alexander, “What is NATO? And what do Trump and Russia think about it?”, 04/19/2018, nbcnews.com

1998 saw the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed, killing 12 Americans, and Osama bin Laden’s name was first introduced to most Americans. The attack wounded over 4,000 and killed over 200. This is the first time Osama would be added to the FBI’s 10 most wanted list. Fast forward to the year 2000, and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in which 17 American sailors were killed. The next year, on September 11th, 2001 Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network would claim the lives of 3,000 Americans. Osama bin Laden was now the most wanted and notorious man in the world.

Ten years later on May 2nd, 2011 a Navy SEALS team executed a raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, killing al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. While this was a great victory for the U.S., it did not end terrorism or al-Qaeda. At this point, a decade after the attack, Bin Laden was no longer even orchestrating al-Qaeda’s operations. Nor did his death end Bin Laden-ism. Bin Laden-ism is his type of Jihad that kills civilians and empowers the downtrodden and discouraged to fight against western powers that many of his follower’s attribute to their current situation. It’s the reason al-Qaeda had 400 members at the time of the 9/11 attacks and over 20,000 members today. Famed CNN investigative journalist Peter Bergen even described al-Qaeda as “Holy War, Inc.”. After Bin Laden, terrorism is in large part no longer state sponsored, but a more multinational independently operated organization. Bin Laden-ism showed that small groups could go toe-to-toe with world superpowers.

In this installment of ‘Life After ISIS’, I want to try and show how al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization who has killed the most American lives, has purposefully moved into the shadows while ISIS garnered the global terrorism spotlight. With the demise of ISIS, we may see al-Qaeda reemerge with a new Bin Laden at the helm. Hamza bin Laden, Osama’s favorite son, is being groomed to become the next Bin Laden America must deal with.

Hamza is Osama’s 15th child of his 20 to 23 children. Hamza was born sometime in the late 1980’s to Osama’s favorite wife, Khairia Sabar. Therefore, Hamza is probably around 29 years old. Osama and Khairia were married in 1985. This was before the formation of al-Qaeda and Osama’s spree of terrorism activities. Khairia holds a PhD in child psychology and was even a university professor for a while. After many miscarriages, Khairia was able to provide Osama with one son, Hamza. Hamza grew up under Osama’s care in Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, and eventually Afghanistan.

At a very young age, in the late 1990’s, Hamza was well acquainted with jihadi groups and warfare. He appeared alongside his brothers Mohamed, Sa’ad, Khalid, and Ladin dressed as child soldiers in al-Qaeda propaganda videos. Even though Hamza was only around 10 years old, these were the last known images we had of him until the CIA released video captured from Osama’s compound of Hamza’s wedding sometime in the mid-2000’s.

As his father gained more and more notoriety, Hamza did follow him to the various countries in which he lived. This eventually led the family to their hideout safe haven and training camps of Afghanistan. It was at this point that the family began to fracture and separate.

With the September 11th attacks nearing their final planning stages, and anticipation of American retaliation in Afghanistan, Osama wanted his family to leave the country. Some of his sons chose to return to Saudi Arabia and participate in the wealthy family business. Some chose to go into exile with Osama’s urging. Hamza, his mother, and their family decided to go into exile in Iran. Bin Laden also sent his top three officials into Iran along with many of his family members.

Shortly after entering Iran, the members of the exiled party were arrested by Iranian officials. Among the party were those top three al-Qaeda officials comprising of Abu Mohammed al-Masri, Abu Khair al-Masri, and Saif al-Adel. These three men helped plan the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa, were in charge of Osama’s security, and responsible for starting networks in other countries. Besides current leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, these three men were three of the highest-ranking officials in the terrorist network. Therefore, Hamza grew up in captivity learning from three terrorist masterminds.

Hamza bin Laden would spend nearly 10 years in Iranian captivity with his family. While the family was allowed some freedom of movement and interaction, they were still isolated to an Iranian compound. Although, they were allowed to play soccer, worship, and even have contact with the outside world. An audio recording was released in 2002 of Hamza reciting jihadi poetry to his father, as well as letters describing his deep desire to rejoin his father. In his prison exile, Hamza married the embassy bombing architect Abu Mohammed al-Masri’s daughter. They also had two children over that time span, named Osama and Khairia to honor Hamza’s father and mother.

Hamza, his mother, and a few other members of his family were finally released on August 10th, 2010. In 2010 al-Qaeda captured their own high value bargaining chip, a high-ranking Iran diplomat. They were able to perform a prisoner swap, and many members of Osama’s family were released from Iran. Upon release, Osama urged them to join him at his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Khairia, Osama’s wife and Hamza’s mother decided to undertake the journey to Pakistan.

Osama did not want his wife bringing any possessions with her that she owned in Pakistan, for fear that they might be bugged. He even urged her to have a tooth removed that contained a filling she had done while in Iranian captivity. She finally arrived in Abbottabad on February 12th, 2011, less than two months before the raid.

Hamza also desperately wanted to join his father in Pakistan, but it was much more difficult for him to get there than his mother. Hamza was the best suited son to carry out Osama’s legacy. Upon leaving Iran, Hamza traveled to Waziristan. Waziristan is a mountainous ungoverned lawless region stretching across Afghanistan and Pakistan, in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas. This was the ideal place for him to hide out. Even though he wanted to journey to his father’s home, Osama did not even want Hamza leaving his house.

Osama had learned his lesson by bestowing too much responsibility too quickly on one of his sons. He groomed his son Sa’ad to help run al-Qaeda after Sa’ad was released from Iran in 2008. But Sa’ad became too well known and sought after and was killed by an American airstrike in 2009. So, Osama wanted Hamza to stay much more hidden and behind the scenes. In April of 2011 Hamza formulated a plan to travel to Abbottabad. By the time Hamza put his plan into action, it was too late. Osama bin Laden’s compound was raided in May, and he and Hamza’s brother Khalid were killed in action. Khairia and Bin Laden’s other wives in the compound were taken into custody by Pakistani authorities.

Hamza was heard from again for the first time since he was a teenager, in 2015. Osama’s No. 2, and now current leader of al-Qaeda Zawahiri released an audio recording featuring the new “lion from the den of al-Qaeda”. This new speaker was none other than Hamza bin Laden. Hamza proceeds to insult President Obama, praise the AQ affiliates in other countries, and recognize the Boston Marathon bombers, and Fort Hood Shooter, who it turns out was partly inspired by Hamza’s writings.

In 2016 and 2017 he released even more audio recordings, and quite frequently addressing current events. Some focused on Syria and using the civil war to help liberate Palestine and attack the Jews. Some recordings praised his father’s legacy, and some called for increased attacks in the West and against America. His most recent audio messages, released just a few months ago, discusses tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the current conflict in Yemen, calling on followers to take up arms in Yemen.

With ISIS’s influence slowly dissipating, Hamza’s messages have not been critical of the group as past al-Qaeda messages have been. This is in an effort to hopefully have remaining Islamic State members join their affiliate groups. With the frequency and ease of his messages, that goes to show he is not deep underground in hiding anymore. It also goes to show the Crown Prince of al-Qaeda’s voice is the one leading their messaging. The next sign indicating he is taking leadership will be if a video message shows his face, or unfortunately, if he pulls off some form of an attack. With recent messaging including statements such as to “rise in rebellion against oppression and tyranny” and “revolt against the agents of the Americans”, the next Bin Laden clearly has America in his sights.

Sources:
Bergen, Peter, “Holy War, Inc.”, 2001, Simon & Schuster
Cohen, Zachary; Todd, Brian, “CIA reveals rare images of Osama Bin Laden’s son”, 11/03/2017, cnn.com
Coll, Steve, “The Bin Ladens”, 2008, The Penquin Press
“Hamza bin Laden, son of Osama, appears set to become the new face of al-Qaeda”, 9news.com.au, 05/17/2017
Joscelyn, Thomas, “Hamza bin Laden lionizes his father and incites ‘rebellion’ in new audio message”, 11/07/2017, longwarjournal.org
Joscelyn, Thomas, “Hamza bin Laden warns of Shite expansion in the Middle East”, 04/01/2018, longwarjournal.com
Soufan, Ali, “Anatomy of Terror”, 2017, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Soufan, Ali, “Hamza bin Laden, Osama’s Son, Is Helping Al-Qaeda Stage a Deadly Comeback”, newsweek.com, 06/19/2017
Staling, Steven, “A Millennial Bin Laden Prepares To Take Over Al-Qaeda – And Possibly The Global Jihad Movement”, The Middle East Media Research Institute, 02/16/2018
Warrick, Joby; Mekhennet, Souad, “Bin Laden’s son steps into father’s shoes as al-Qaeda attempts a comeback”, Washington Post, 05/27/2017
Withnall, Adam, “Hamza bin Laden: Could Osama’s son be the future leader of al-Qaeda?”, independent.co.uk, 05/11/2016

A seven-year civil war, over half a million citizens killed (although he U.N. has stopped counting), and 12 million people, or half the country’s population, displaced from their homes. That is the current situation in Syria. The 2011 Arab Spring that took down leaders such as Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Gaddafi in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya also sprung up in Syria that year. Yet, Bashar al-Assad is still in power. How is this possible that a dictator as brutal as Assad is still in power? We are going to take a look at how we’ve gotten to this point, and how Syria differs from these other places and situations.

In 2011 the protests started out peaceful, and very localized. Poorer rural citizens were suffering economically, and wanted many corrupt local leaders removed. That all changed when a few teenage boys spray painted some anti-Assad graffiti on the wall of their school in the city of Deraa. The boys were arrested, and their families were not notified where they were taken. When the boys were finally released weeks later, one 13-year old boy had been tortured and beaten so badly that he died.

For those few weeks, protestors in the city gathered together to demand release of the boys. Each protest was met with violence from security officials, and a few deaths of protestors. Each funeral for a protestor killed or someone tortured and killed led to larger and larger protests, and more and more killings by the regime. Finally, protests grew so large in Deraa that Assad sent tanks into the city, and the Syrian government killed hundreds of citizens. But many of those in the city fought back. And a good portion of soldiers who didn’t agree with the regime defected from the army. These groups formed what is known as the Free Syrian Army (FSA), and thus the seven-year Syrian Civil War began.

As brutal a leader as Assad is now known, he wasn’t destined to be this way, or even be in this position in the first place. But the brutality was in his blood. His father Hafez al-Assad and his Baath Party came to power in 1982 after helping to stage a coup against the previous government. When the Muslim Brotherhood protested his government, he ordered his military to kill over 10,000 of the Sunni Muslims and flattened much of the city of Hama. Hafez then brought many of his Alawite sect, a minority Shia Muslim group, into power and leadership positions within the government.

At this point it should be noted that Syria is a majority Sunni Muslim country, as most Middle Eastern countries are. Although as previously stated, Assad and his top officials are Alawites, a Shia sect. So, a leader with minority religious beliefs is in power and has been for decades. That is an important aspect to keep in mind when looking at the Civil War.

Once Hafez’s Alawite minority sect took over power, his oldest son Bassel, not Bashar, was heir apparent to take over power in Syria as the next great Shia leader of the country. This threw Bashar on a wildly different career path from a young age when his father took over when he was just 5 years old. Bashar decided to become a doctor. In fact, an eye doctor, an ophthalmologist. Bashar would graduate from Syria’s University of Damascus in 1988, and then moved to London to pursue an advanced ophthalmology degree.

Bashar al-Assad was still living in London in 1994 when he received the news that his brother Bassel, the future leader of Syria, had been killed in a car crash. This forced Bashar to return to Syria immediately, where he would instantly take on the role of heir to the presidency. His father Hafez knew he would need political and military experience to be deemed a credible president by members of his Baath Party and the citizens themselves. Therefore, he started working with government leaders, and became a military doctor in the Syrian Army. After having spent 30 years as the leader of Syria, Hafez passed away in 2000. Upon changing the presidency age limits from 40 down to 34 (to fit Bashar’s age), he was elected president of Syria, continuing the decades old Assad rule of the country.

Fast forward to 2011 and the rising Arab Spring, and Assad is the ruler of a country that is experiencing a fierce drought, an economy that is down 62%, and cities that are vastly overcrowded due to rural farmer migration to the metropolitan areas. Syria is the type of country that provides all basic needs to their citizens, but when the population doubled under Bashar’s rule, the poorer government could no longer take care of the welfare state they had created. This led to further unrest among the population and continued to stoke the flames of the civil war.

Even up until this point, Assad was not seen as your typical Arab dictator, such as Hussein or Gaddafi with AK47 pointed upward firing rounds into the sky. He was still that sheepish shy eye doctor, who never really wanted in politics in the first place. Yet here he was, and the civil war would reach it’s turning point in 2013. By 2013 Assad had lost some major cities to the rebels such as Aleppo (Syria’s most populous city), and areas around the capital. This led to him implementing extreme measures. On August 21st, 2013 Assad’s regime fired sarin-filled rockets into a rebel held area around the capital of Damascus called Eastern Ghouta. The chemical weapons killed more than 1,400 civilians, making it the worst chemical attack in decades.

So why after two full years of civil war, and leaders in other countries being disposed of much more quickly, and horrific killings and poverty, was Assad still in power? The primary reason was the foreign backing that Assad enjoyed. He had two of the major world powers in his corner, Russia and Iran. Russia supports him for various regional strategic reason that I have discussed in a past article, such as military bases in the country. Iran supports him predominantly because they are the largest Shia Islamic Republic in the world, and they would love to keep in power one of only two Shia leaders in the entire Middle East (and a few other reasons that we will explore in future articles).

In 2012, as stated previously, the rebels had taken over large portions of land and cities. Iran then provided Shia militias to enter Syria, which consisted of tens of thousands of soldiers. Assad’s army was almost devastated in 2012, and the Iranian military commanders and foot soldiers changed the tide of the war. In 2015 Russia started using airstrikes on rebel strongholds, again turning major victories to Assad as the rebels did not possess air power. Due to Russian and Iranian interference, the rebels have virtually been decimated at this point in time.

In fact, the rebels themselves helped Assad stay in power. When the Free Syrian Army formed, it consisted of loosely held militias from all over the country. In-fighting between groups for foreign funding and leadership roles, went a long way in creating a downfall for the rebel groups. With the rise of ISIS as a major player in 2014, the rebels were then fighting a two-front war. They did not have the resources to fight the Assad regime and the Islamic State.

When international focus shifted to ISIS, the “Redline” that Obama had issued to Assad was not a top priority. Assad was now seen internationally as the “lesser evil”. Three years of attention from 2014 until 2017 was spent with military operations fighting ISIS. The CIA even started a $500 million training program to assist some of the Free Syrian Army groups. Only 60 trained individuals would end up graduating from this $500 million program, or $8.3 million per person. Therefore, with the U.S. focusing on the Islamic State threat, and Sunni Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, and Qatar opposing Assad but never taking any action, the international stance against Assad in effect helped keep him in power.

Finally, one major difference between Assad’s Syria and other countries, lay in his internal support. With decades of government creation, Syrian leadership benefitted financially while other citizens suffered. Assad’s leadership was dominated by his Baath party and members of his Alawite sect. Industries within the country such as energy, telecommunications, and construction were consolidated under just a few families. In fact, at one point during this time Assad’s cousin owned 60% of their national economy. So as you can see, the government and business leaders had no reason to remove Bashar, in fact it would actually hurt them if he left power.

This scenario of internal support held true for the Syrian military too. The military leaders and many of the soldiers were all Shia. Whereas the overwhelming majority of the population and rebels were Sunni. That is not so in other countries who changed leadership during the Arab Spring. In Egypt and Libya, you had Sunni military fighting against Sunni protestors and rebels. When a leader such as Gaddafi ordered his military to kill and fight protestors, they were faced with the tough decision to follow their leader’s orders and kill their religious brethren. And often the military turned on the leader and helped take over the country. The military leaders in Syria did not face that dilemma, as they were not religious supporters of those they were fighting against. Which leads us to over 500,000 Syrians now dead and over half of the country displaced, causing one of the largest refugee crises the world has ever seen.

As you can see, several circumstances led to Assad taking over power in Syria, as well as helping him remain in power. There is much more brutality that could be written about in Syria, and I do not believe the country will recover while Bashar al-Assad remains in power. And even should someone else step into the leadership role, it will take years and trillions of dollars to restore a country who has had entire cities leveled to dust. It is important for us to monitor events in Syria, because the U.S. will have a long-term interest in Syria whether it’s having troops on the ground, extinguishing ISIS, fighting Assad for chemical attacks, stopping Russian and Iranian influence, or helping with the rebuilding and recovery of the country. Unfortunately, this will not be a quick process, and the citizens of Syria will continue to suffer. But in my opinion, little progress will occur as long as the current leadership in Syria remains in place.

Sources:
Al Jazeera, “Syria’s Civil War explained from the beginning”, 4-14-18
Al Jazeera, “Why is Bashar al-Assad still in power?”, 10-04-16
Al Jazeera, “Why is Bashar al-Assad still in power?”, 4-14-18
Baer, Robert, “Sleeping With The Devil”, Three Rivers Press, 2003
Cordesman, Anthony, “Assad: the real “Butcher’s Bill” in Syria”, CSIS.org, 4-06-17
De Haldevang, Max, “The enigma of Assad: How a painfully shy eye doctor turned into a murderous tyrant”, qz.com
Jamieson, Alastair, “How Syria’s ‘Geeky’ President Assad Went From Doctor to Dictator”, NBCNews
Soufan, Ali, “Anatomy of Terror: From the Death of Bin Laden to the Rise of the Islamic State”, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2017
Tabler, Andrew, “How Syria Came to This”, theatlantic.com, 4-15-18
Weiss, Michael; Hassan, Hassan, “ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror”, Regan Arts, 2015

U.S. and Iranian relations, especially in the Middle East, are quite tense as most are aware. Although, these tensions are not a recent development. The groundwork for this tension was laid 12 presidents and almost 70 years ago. We recently took a look back at how Egypt, and their cotton, helped the Union win the Civil War. In this article we are going to take another look back in time, to 1953, when the U.S. had a hand in creating the current instability in the Middle East.

The 1950’s were an interesting time in the United States. World War II was completed, the economy was booming, people were moving to the suburbs, and the US held the most powerful military in the world. Having a strong economy, booming industry and automobile markets, and running the equipment of the largest military in the world all had one thing in common. Oil. 12 years earlier oil was discovered by an American company in a far away, poor, desert country full of tribes and pilgrims. This place, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, hadn’t even been a country but for a few years. In 1951 the Arabian American Oil Company struck oil at the Safaniya Oil Field, the largest offshore oil field in the entire world.

The British had a jump start on the Americans in the search for oil. Having the largest Navy in the world around the turn of the century, the British needed large amounts of oil to keep the ships running. They made the first significant oil find in the Middle East when they struck oil in 1908 in Iran. Thus the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was created and the British were drilling for and pumping oil in Iran.

By the 1950’s, oil had taken its place as king. The West controlled almost all of the Middle Eastern oil. 1950 the U.S. agreed to share profits after Saudi Arabia requested it. A 50/50 split of the profits was agreed upon. When Iran made the same request of the British, they would not give in to their pressure. In 1951 Mohammad Mossadegh was elected Prime Minister of Iran. As a result of Great Britain’s refusal to share in oil profits with Iran, he completely nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, with the government of Iran taking over full control. England requested the U.S.’help to restore the company back under British control, but Harry Truman and the U.S. elected not to help.

That all changed with Dwight Eisenhower being elected President in 1952. Eisenhower, a hero general of WWII, was a fierce anti-communist. The British made the same appeal to Eisenhower for help that they had made to Truman. By this time, British and CIA intelligence had information that Mossadegh had communist leanings and could be taken over by the Soviets. England also wanted their cheap oil back, as well as the U.S.’S help in keeping the Soviets away from the Persian Gulf, where most of the U.S.’s, England’s, and the worlds oil flowed from.

With Mossadegh coming to power in Iran, he also set out to weaken the power of the Shah, or king, of Iran. The Shah of Iran was Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Pahlavi had always been a friend of the United States and western powers. With Mossadegh now in charge, the Shah’s influence and power was severely limited, even to the point where he would flee the country for long periods of time.

So in 1953 the U.S. and the British set out to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and restore the rule of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Both world powers believed that restoring the monarchy in Iran would be much friendlier to western interests during the upcoming Cold War, as well as keeping them supplied with Middle Eastern oil. This Coup or Iranian regime change was laid at the feet of the CIA station chief in Iran. That person was one Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of former U.S. President Teddy Roosevelt.

The plan was titled “Operation Ajax”. Kermit was funneled millions of dollars by the CIA to influence the populace, the religious leaders, and the military to support the Shah and turn against Prime Minister Mossadegh. Early in the operation, Shah Pahlavi did not support a potential coup when the plan was presented to him, but things quickly changed. Mossadegh issued a decree dissolving the Iranian Parliament and giving himself and his appointed cabinet all the power. This pretty well stripped the Shah of all remaining power he once held. At this point he finally agreed to the plan.

Kermit and his fellow operatives were able to conduct several activities with the stacks of cash they had been handed. The majority of the funds were used for bribes. The CIA decided to use the military to stage the coup, therefore an appropriate military predecessor for Mossadegh had to be identified. One was found in General Fazollah Zahedi and his followers. Funded through the foreign intelligence services, he agreed to help overthrow the Prime Minister.

The bribe money was then used in several different areas focusing on the public. Iran already had some public tension inside the country. Mossadegh’s government was heading more towards a democratic government. Some in the population agreed with that, but many wanted a religious Islamic government in place ruled by the Ayatollahs. The Shah had even dismissed Mossadegh once in 1952, just the previous year, but reinstated him after much public outcry. Kermit and the CIA were able to seize the opportunity revolving around this public discourse. They were able to bride prominent businessmen, news organizations to run several anti-Mossadegh stories, and street thugs and individuals to stir up public protests and riots. Even bussing them in from different towns to the capital of Tehran.

As a result, fierce protests broke out between the paid protesters, pro-Shah groups, religious hard-liners; and those favorable to Mossadegh and his party members. On August 15th , 1953, Kermit set in motion the plan for the Iranian military to take over the government. Unfortunately for the CIA, Mossadegh got wind of the plan, and started having prominent military leaders arrested. The plan to reinstate the Shah looked doomed. The U.S. government in turn sent a cable to Iran on August 18th to shut down the plan and withdraw from the country. They did not want the U.S. tied to the coup, and decided it was time to forget the plan rather than have their involvement be exposed by a second failure.

According to released CIA documents, Roosevelt received this cable, but after all the hard groundwork he had laid for months, chose to ignore the instructions and give Operation Ajax one final shot to be completed. General Zahedi had gone into hiding and escaped the arrests, so Kermit felt hope was still alive to achieve their goals. On August 19th , more violent protests irrupted. They involved destruction, vandalism, and looting, resulting in a few hundred deaths. Later in the day General Zahedi and his army entered the city to squelch the protests, and in doing so took over all the government buildings. They then had Prime Minister Mohammad Mossedegh arrested on treason charges.

At that time the U.S. officials with Shah Pahlavi had him sign decrees dismissing Mossadegh as Prime Minister, and another decree appointing General Fazlollah Zahedi as the new Prime Minister of Iran. And the Shah was reinstated and entered Iran once again. The monarchy had been restored.

As a result of the successful coup, it set into motion a series of feelings and events that would last for decades. In the immediate future, the British were able to regain their oil facilities and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company began pumping once again. The next year in 1954 they changed their name to British Petroleum or BP. The Shah also signed over 40% of Iran’s oil fields to U.S. companies, allowing them to enter into the Anglo-Iranian company, as well as the profits finally being shared with Iran. These funds helped Iran get out of their economic crisis.

Mossadegh was arrested and jailed for three years. He later died under house arrest where he spent the rest of his life after imprisonment. The U.S. was able to have the Shah and Iran as a Middle Eastern communist buffer and big ally during the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s Cold War. The U.S. sent Iran millions of dollars in military and economic aid during those three decades. Iran never did become the communist country that many feared it could, but the coup fueled a strong underlying sense of nationalism that simmered just below the surface for decades.

With the U.S. experiencing their first successful coup and regime change of another country, they were then confident enough to stage future coups in Guatemala, Indonesia, and Cuba in the coming decades. In 1979 that strong underlying sense of Iranian Nationalism would spring up stronger than ever. In 1979 public outcry for the removal of the Shah and for a government of Islamic law was seen and heard throughout Iran. The monarchy was dissolved in early 1979, ending 2,500 years of continuous Persian monarchy rule. The Shah fled the country and was eventually admitted to the United States to undergo cancer treatment. On November 4th, 1979 revolutionaries stormed the U.S. Embassy holding hostages there until 1981. In December Ayatollah Khomeini established Iran as an Islamic Republic and appointed himself the 1st Supreme Leader of Iran.

Since this point in time, U.S. and Iranian relations have been strained or non-existent. They are still furious with the “Great Satan” due to our meddling in their affairs and putting in place what they saw as a U.S. puppet leader in the Shah. While the U.S. and Iran certainly have vast value and religious differences, those are often not the reason for Middle Eastern hatred as the media often portrays it. Religious differences are an easy argument, whereas deeper issues such as regime change and support for Israel are often the real cause for Iranian hatred. With Iran and Israel currently having conflicts in Syria, and the U.S. dealing with Iranian proxy armies in Syria and Iraq, it doesn’t seem like this problem will be resolved quickly. Hopefully it isn’t another 70 years of open conflict and hostility.

Sources:
Allen-Ebrahimian, Bethany, “64 Years Later, CIA Finally Releases Details of Iranian Coup”, foreignpolicy.com, 6-20-17
Dehghan, Saeed Kamali; Norton-Taylor, Richard, “CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian Coup”, theguardian.com, 8-19-13.
History.com, “CIA-assisted coup otherthrows government of Iran”
Kinzer, Stephen, “All The Shah’s Men”, 2003
McQuade, Joseph, “How the CIA toppled Iranian democracy”, theconversation.com, 6-24-17
Nytimes.com, “Key Events in the 1953 Coup”, 2000

One major player continues to emerge in the Middle East, Iran. With the Islamic State’s Caliphate almost completely annihilated, and several countries still in disarray, the time is right for regional powers to exert their influence. For the past three years we have heard several discussions and debates revolving around the Iran Nuclear Deal. Is it good? Is it bad? Or what even is the deal about? We are going to take a look into what exactly makes up the Iran Nuclear Deal and how it will effect the Middle East and the U.S. moving forward.

The Iran Nuclear Deal is officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It was a deal agreed upon between Iran and what’s known as the UN Security Council’s Permanent members the P5 + 1. The P5+1 consists of the U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China, and Germany as the plus 1. The agreement was reached in the summer of 2015 after 20 months of negotiations, and fully implemented January 16th, 2016 during the Obama Administration. The purpose of this deal was to lift crippling sanctions on Iran’s nuclear energy program.

Iran has had a long history with nuclear power, and pursued that item since the 1950’s, even to the point that at one time the United States leased enriched uranium to Iran for their use. Relations between the U.S. and Iran quickly started to deteriorate. The U.S. had placed economic sanctions on Iran for decades following the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis when 52 Americans were held captive for over a year. President Carter approved sanctions after this incident, President Reagan after Iran invaded Iraq in the early 1980’s, by President Clinton after Iranian nuclear violations and support for Palestinian terrorist organizations, and once again by George W. Bush following more nuclear program violations. Sanctions were placed on Iranian banking assets held overseas, banks, insurance, oil and automobile industries, and investment sectors for foreign companies to do business with Iranian companies. The European Union and the United Nations also placed many of these sanctions on Iran.

For Iran to have these sanctions lifted, the Iran Nuclear Deal specified many qualifications and requirements they must meet. To make a nuclear bomb, uranium must be enriched to 90%. By accepting the deal Iran agreed to only enrich Uranium to 3.67% for the next 15 years, enough to be used for nuclear power. At the time of the deal Iran possessed 20,000 centrifuges used for the enrichment. They must reduce that number down to 5,060 for 13 years. The 5,060 can also only be their oldest and least efficient ones. In regards to their Uranium stockpile, they had to reduce it by 98% down to only 660lbs for 15 years. All of these activities would be limited to a single facility for 10 years.

They also agreed to not build any new heavy water production facilities. Heavy water facilities create spent fuel which contains plutonium which can also be used for an atomic bomb. Any spent fuel created must be shipped out of Iran, with most of it going to the U.S. In addition to the stipulations, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will have monitoring access to all nuclear facilities at any time.

While all sanctions on Iran’s banks, oil, and industry were lifted, several sanctions remained in place that were not lifted. These sanctions that remained in place, and still remain now, involve missile technology, terrorism sanctions listing Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, individuals connected with terror, human rights abuses, and future sanctions in regards to Iran’s involvement in Yemen and Syria. Additionally, if Iran is found to be in violation of the JCPOA, all previous removed economic sanctions “snap back” into place.

You may also remember a few years ago, and during the time of our presidential election and debates, discussion of the U.S. shipping $400 million to Iran on pallets in the middle of the night a day after the nuclear deal was implemented. What was that all about? And why did President Trump say it was ransom money but President Obama said it wasn’t related to any American prisoners?

After the previously mentioned Iranian Hostage crisis in 1979, President Jimmy Carter froze all Iranian assets held within the United States. This accounted for around $12 billion in assets. Most of the money was returned or unfrozen a few years later, but $400 million was not.

The Shah of Iran had made an advanced payment of $400 million before the revolution for American made fighter jets and weapons. After the crisis occurred, the U.S. was in no position to fulfill that order, especially since the Shah who made the order was ousted with Ayatollah Khomeini coming to power. Therefore, the order was never fulfilled, and the funds were never returned. So essentially Iran had made a government to government transaction that was never completed or resolved for three decades. A final agreement of $400 million and $1.3 billion in interest was agreed upon to be paid to Iran.

Then things start to get even more interesting. The Iran Nuclear Deal was implemented on January 16th, 2016, and the $400 million was shipped back to Iran in the form of Euros, Swiss Francs, and other international currencies on January 17th . On that same day that the money was transferred, 5 American hostages were released from Iranian custody. In return, 7 U.S. detained Iranians were freed. So you have three major events taking place all at one time. A nuclear deal being struck, a payment of $1.7 billion dollars, and a prisoner swap. While all three events were vacillated by three different teams, some major diplomacy was happening. So while the money transfer wasn’t technically a ransom payment, the three events weren’t totally separate either. This deal was used as leverage to clear away a number of diplomatic disputes between Iran and the United States.

The talks around the deal we hear now are in regards to its effectiveness. Two sides have two different philosophies and arguments. When the deal was signed, the Obama administration had one thought process about the deal. Previous sanctions of Iran allowed for vertically no enrichment of uranium. As a result Iran would open secret facilities that the U.S. wouldn’t learn about until years later. Since many of the pursuits of nuclear energy were being done in secret, they weren’t being monitored by the IAEA, and were in violation of previous agreements they had signed. Therefore, the deal was made on the thought process that if they were allowed minimum access to do these activities, it would create much more transparency, get rid of the secret movements, and allow monitoring off all Iran’s nuclear activity.

It was also done with economic impacts in mind. With sanctions to so many of Iran’s business sectors, the country was doing very poor economically. The price of most foods had risen 40%, inflation was at 16%, and youth unemployment was at a staggering 40%. And being unable to work with businesses from other countries, there was little hope for the people of Iran to break their poverty woes. With the lifting of the sanctions, around $100 million in frozen foreign assets was released, and businesses such as the oil company Shell and automobile manufacturers started looking at business opportunities within the country. All of these items combined were the basis to complete this deal.

The second school of thought comes from the current administration. President Trump makes the claim that the deal is too lenient. The deal has to be recertified every 120 days. It was last decertified in January, with the president stating he would not recertify in May and pull out of the Iran Nuclear Deal unless congress added new conditions.

The new conditions first dealt with the sunset laws. The current administration does not want certain aspects of the deal to expire after 10, 13, or 15 years like they are listed above. Any limits on Iran’s nuclear program should be permanently in effect. He also stated that ballistic missile sanctions and nuclear sanctions should be linked. If Iran is found in violation of trying to obtain or create ballistic missiles, then in turn that would be linked to pursuing a nuclear weapon and a violation. Recently rebels in Yemen have been found to be launching Iranian made missiles into Saudi Arabia. Finally, Iran is restricting access by IAEA to military sites. President Trump believes the military sites should also be inspected, with intelligence reports that Iran could be developing nuclear technology on its military bases.

As you can see, any dealings with Iran are complicated, and have been for decades. Yet, Iran is a major player in the Middle East, and their influence will only increase in the coming years. How the U.S. chooses to deal with that influence will shape our Middle Eastern foreign policy and politics in that region for a long time to come. With Iran having a presence in countries with lots of turmoil such as Iraq, Syria, Yemen,Afghanistan, and Lebanon, this is not the last we will hear of Iran in a post ISIS world.

Side note fun fact: Missouri has a nuclear power plant near Fulton, MO. Additionally, around 150 nuclear warheads are stored at Whiteman Air Force Base outside Jefferson City. Several Middle Eastern bombing runs have been conducted from that base. Which means  a bomber can leave Missouri and fly to Iraq, bomb a target, turn around and fly all the way back and land in Missouri.

Sources:

Borger, Julian, “Iran Nuclear Deal: Sanctions waived as Trump begins countdown to keep us in”, the guardian.com, 1-12-18
“Iran Nuclear Deal: Key Points”, BBC.com, 10-13-17
“Iran, the United States and a Political Seesaw”, newyorktimes.com, 1-11-12
Obama, Barack, “The Historic Deal that Will Prevent Iran from Acquiring a Nuclear Weapon”, obamawhitehouse.archives.gov, 1-16-16
Ostroukn, Andrey, “US Ultimatum on Nuclear Deal, new sanctions draw Iran threat”, Reuters.com, 1-13-18
Tulley, Shawn, “5 things you need to know about the $400 million America sent to Iran”, fortune.com, 8-5-16
Vick, Karl, “Why the U.S. Owed Iran That $400 million”, Time.com, 8-5-16

To truly understand U.S. and Middle Eastern relations, we should take a look at the history of those relations. While many are familiar with recent U.S. conflict and involvement in the Middle East, we have had relations and a presence there for well over 200 years. This article will examine how the U.S. and the Middle East used each other in the mid-1800’s, and how Egypt helped the Union win the Civil War and how it could be argued the Civil War truly ended on Egyptian soil.

Slavery is often one of the first things to pop into your mind when you think of the Civil War, but producing cotton in the south was the foundation of that slavery. With the invention of the textile mill in Europe, specifically England, cotton was in as high of demand as oil is today. Most of the world’s supply of cotton came from the American South. In the 1850’s leading up to the war, England received 80% of its cotton from the American South, and in 1859 cotton accounted for 48% of the total value of all U.S. products sold overseas. Even the word cotton itself is derived from the Arabic word qutn.

One week after the start of the Civil War at Fort Sumter, President Abraham Lincoln ordered northern ships to blockade all southern ports. This, right from the start was a major blow to Jefferson Davis and his Confederate army. Cotton growers couldn’t export their crops, and English textile mills couldn’t receive their cotton from southern plantations. Within weeks this set the world from Australia to India halting their wheat production and starting to grow cotton.

A number of years earlier, a French Engineer by the name of Monsieur Louis Jumel chose Egypt for his new breed of cotton. This cotton was a hybrid of an American seed from Georgia and a seed from Peru. He sold this seed to Muhammad Ali Pasha, the founder of modern day Egypt. The seed became know as “Egyptian Cotton”, which we still find in sheets and linens to this day. Egypt started producing the cotton in the early 1800’s, though very sparingly.

Fast forward to the mid-1800’s, and Ali’s son Said Pasha is the ruler of Egypt. As the Civil War starts and the blockade goes into effect, Great Britain declared themselves neutral in the fight. This was a second blow to the confederacy as they believed England would side with them as the American South kept England’s economy afloat. Jefferson Davis, a cotton planter himself, and the Confederate Government decided to put into effect what was known as “King Cotton Diplomacy”. He believed a cotton embargo would force Great Britain to join the side of the confederacy. He ordered that 2.5 million bales of cotton be burned, creating an instant shortage. They also used cotton to barter for weapons, ammunition, and ships from British manufacturers. Southern ships would slip the blockade and complete these illegal transactions in British controlled Bahamas and Bermuda. The Confederate Government even met with William Mure, the British Consul at New Orleans, to use cotton as a bargaining chip to gain a British treaty.

What the Confederacy failed to realize was that their bumper crops in the 1850’s had created a surplus of cotton in England. The British textile mills did not need the southern cotton to keep production going. They had a supply that would last until the end of 1862. This allowed them ample time to find an alternative source of cotton.

Thus Great Britain turned to Egypt and Said Pasha. At the time cotton made up only 3% of Egypt’s exports. England, as well as the Northern Union, encouraged Pasha to increase cotton production to meet demand in England. Pasha ordered the entire fertile lower Nile region converted to cotton production. England even sent G.B. Haywood, the Secretary of the Cotton Supply Association to Egypt to ask them to increase production, to which they happily obliged. Egypt went from cotton accounting for 3% of their exports to 93% of their exports later in the 1800’s, and Pasha reduced the export duty from 10 cents to .1 cent. The price and value of land in Egypt quadrupled. Their revenue from cotton increased by 1,000%. England was now in a full supply of Egyptian cotton, and reliance on southern cotton diminished.

By August 1861 Egypt had secured over $100 million in loans to develop their cotton industry. Said Pasha even visited London to discuss how he could best assist the Brits in developing more and higher quality cotton. Upon Said’s death in 1863, mid way of the Civil War, he was succeeded by his nephew Ismail Pasha. Ismail started a form of Egyptian industrial revolution implementing the Middle East’s first railway system, telegraph lines, steam ploughs, steam pumps, steam cotton gins, and began building the vitally important Suez Canal. All backed by European dollars.

Egypt kept England afloat economically, with encouragement from the British and the government of Abraham Lincoln, hastening an end to the Civil War as southern soldiers could no longer afford to fight a war. They ensured that the Europeans had no reason to intervene in the war. Wide spread starvation and lack of sufficient weapons, ammunition, and ships resulted in serious battlefield losses for southern soldiers.

Upon President Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865, John Wilkes Booth and almost all of his co-conspirators were all quickly apprehended. Save one. John Surratt Jr. escaped to Canada. He then used faked identities to work his way from various parts of Europe to Rome in Italy. Using another false identity he boarded a ship for Alexandria, Egypt. The U.S. General Consul in Alexandria was tipped off to his arrival, and Surratt was arrested on November 23rd, 1866. So you could argue that the last outstanding episode of the Civil War ended on Egyptian soil. Surratt was shipped back to the U.S. for trial, but was never convicted because the statute of limitations had expired on his charges.

After the Civil War, Ismail also increased Egypt’s military by buying millions of dollars of US made Remington rifles, Gatling guns, and ammunition. Additionally he employed around 50 Confederate and Union officers to come to Egypt and create an Egyptian General Staff to train his troops. So the U.S. even had Civil War personnel in Egypt at one point in time.

Egypt’s usefulness also opened the eyes of those in England. After the Civl War the South was able to produce and sale cotton again. Prices for the crop bottomed out. Egypt experienced low prices on overvalued land, large flooding that destroyed huge amounts of cotton, and saw their fruit, vegetable, and livestock industries decimated as so much focus was placed on cotton crops for a number of years. Egypt could not come close to paying back all the loans they had incurred during the Civil War. They ran a huge budget deficit and almost went bankrupt. This led to Great Britain coming in and taking over Egypt’s treasury and setting up Anglo-Egyptian banks. In 1875 Ismail Pasha sold his shares of the Suez Canal, bought by none other than England. They now controlled Egypt’s treasury and the important Suez Canal. Great Britain would militarily occupy the country in 1882 for the next several decades. They would occupy the country until 1954. Many of these woes Egypt has still not recovered from, and western influence and economic assistance still help to keep the country afloat.

At the same time, the United States Department of Agriculture saw how superior Egyptian cotton was to their own. It was better for thread, undergarments, blending with silk, and holding color. They started importing the seed in the early 1900’s. The US sent the seeds to the American Southwest to be tended by the Pima Indians. This type of American-Egyptian cotton is now known as Pima cotton, managed by the Supima organization, named in honor of those early Native Americans who tended the crop.

As you can see, American and Middle Eastern interactions go back to the roots of both countries. Egypt helped to shape several events in the United States, and U.S. and English involvement in Egypt helped to shape some of the biggest early events in the Middle East (such as the dispute, control, and wars involving the Suez Canal). This is not the only U.S./Middle Eastern interaction within the first 100 years of our country. We will be taking a look at another significant one in the next article of this series.

Sources:
Brooks, Rebecca, “John Surratt: The Lincoln Conspirator who got away”, civilwarsaga.com, 12/19/11
Dattel, Eugene, “Cotton and the Civil War”, mshistory.mdah.state.ms.us
Dunn, John, “King Cotton, the Khedive, and the American Civil War”, southwritlarge.com
“Egyptian Cotton, its modern origin and the Importance of the supply, New York Times, 6/26/1864
Henderson, William, “The Lancashire Cotton Famine”, 1934
Homeguides.com, “Supima vs. Egyptian Cotton”
Lanscombe, Stephen, “Egypt and the British Empire”, British empire.co.uk
Marker, Scott, “The Merchants’ Capital: New Orleans and the Political Economy of the Nineteenth Century South”, 2013
Oren, Michael,” Power, Faith, and Fantasy”, 2007
Osborn, Matthew, “How Egypt won the American Civil War”, alarabiya.com, 02/02/12
Schwartzstein, Peter, “How the American Civil War Built Egypt’s Vaunted Cotton Industry and Changed the Country Forever”, smithsonian.com, 08/01/16

As we touched upon in the last article, ISIS has now been expelled from its so called “caliphate”. No longer do they control major strongholds and cities in Iraq and Syria. Well over 90% of their territory is now controlled by others, with only a few small towns still under ISIS’s influence. But once again, this does not mean the end of this group. Only a strategy shift, as well as a shift to new geographic locations on other continents. Let’s take a look at what this now means for ISIS groups around the world.

To understand their shift in focus, a deeper understanding of strategy must be had. The Islamic State’s strategy was to take a region that was experiencing instability and make it worse by destabilizing the area even further. They would then sweep in the region they had destabilized ushering in a rapid and savage change to Islamic State rule. New tactics are now being employed. ISIS will shift into insurgency mode, using series of guerrilla tactics and hit-and-run attacks. So it is only natural that ISIS’s focus is shifting to other parts of the world with instability such as Iraq and Syria were experiencing when they deployed their tactics.

The Islamic State’s rival as the global leader in terrorism is that of al-Qaeda. This is the group formerly lead by Osama bin Laden and responsible for 9/11. Al-Qaeda has taken a different strategy with a slow implementation of their law after gaining the locals trust. While most of the world has been focused on ISIS, al-Qaeda has had several years to make progress, bide its time, and reenergize its leadership. To take a detailed look at the future of ISIS, al-Qaeda’s future must also be looked at. They now have strong affiliates in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, North Africa, and Somalia. In a future article we will further look at al-Qaeda and it’s rising leader (spoiler alert: it’s another Bin Laden).

Now that we can see how ISIS’s strategy differs from other terror networks, as well as what they are looking for to continue their campaign, where are they headed next? Let’s turn our attention to Africa. Of the 50 least developed countries according to the UN, 34 are in Africa. As well as over 500 million sub-Saharan Africans live on $1.90 a day or less. Many African country’s governments are in shambles, and wide spread starvation is taking over the continent. This is an excellent formula for ISIS growth.

The U.S.’s role in fighting terrorism in sub-Saharan Africa was thrust onto center stage when 4 US soldiers were killed in Niger. If you can’t locate Niger on a map, or know that we had almost 1,000 soldiers there don’t worry, some US Senators didn’t even know. We have had troops in sub-Saharan Africa for almost 15 years, entering at a point in time when many of those countries were spiraling into states of instability and lawlessness. We then increased our presence there around 2011 and 2012 when northern Mali fell to jihadi groups, and again more recently when ISIS affiliates have grown and in response to the attacks in Niger.

So why were we in Niger to begin with? The country of Niger has maintained good relations with the United States, and is conveniently located bordering 5 of the most unstable African nations; Mali, Algeria, Libya, Burkina Faso, and Nigeria. All of these countries feature an ISIS or al-Qaeda affiliate. US troops are here to help eliminate terrorist safe havens in these countries that lack little or no central government. The US troops, killed near the Mali border, were ambushed by ISIS in the Greater Sahara (ISGS) who operate in that country. Al-Qaeda also has a group who operates in Mali, Jamaat Nusrat al-Islam wal Muslimeen (JNIM), as well as Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) who operate in Algeria.

Libya features one of the Islamic States’s most thriving groups the Tripoli Province. The suicide bomber in the attack on the Ariana Grande concert had ties to Libya. Boko Haram is ISIS’s west Africa province, in Nigeria, and best known in the news for kidnapping several hundred school girls. While Burkina Faso features the Islamic State in the Greater Sahel.

As you can see with this many ISIS and AQ provinces in this one region of Africa, the US felt a need to position troops in the region in Niger. The US is also building a $100 million base in Agadez, Niger. They will use this base to launch drone attacks into the aforementioned countries. The US last month conducted around 30 drone strikes in Libya and Somalia, including the first air strike against ISIS’s affiliate in Somalia. Previous air strikes in the country had only been focused on al-Qaeda’s group there, al-Shabab.

With the caliphate in Iraq and Syria in shambles, Somalia is attracting fighters from the defeated caliphate. As a result the US has recently doubled the number of air strikes and ground troops in the country. We has been hesitant to be active in Somalia ever since the “Black Hawk Down” incident in 1993, while the central government of the country has struggled for years. But the need has arisen to be more active there, and we certainly have established a larger presence. ISIS in Somalia has received funding from Iraq and Syria, and received supplies and weapons from San’a Province, the Islamic State’s affiliate in Yemen which lies just across the gulf of Aden from Somalia. Somalia also just recently experienced their largest ever terror attack when a truck bomb killed over 350 individuals in the capital city. Things only seem to be deteriorating more in this war torn country.

Speaking of largest terror attacks, Egypt experienced theirs last month. Around 311 people were killed in a gun and bombing attack on a Sufi mosque in Egypt’s Sinai peninsula. The attack was believed to be carried out by Sinai Province, ISIS’s affiliate in Egypt. With two countries such as Somalia and Egypt, who have dealt with terrorism for decades to just recently have their largest ever attacks, goes a long way in demonstrating the fact that we haven’t seen the last of ISIS or radical Islamic terrorism.

While we’ve explored some prominent ISIS affiliates, and areas where they will take their fighting and resources, there are many more around the world. Khorasan Province, ISIS-K in Afghanistan, Najd Province in Saudi Arabia, Caucasus Province in the Caucasus region of Russia, Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, and around 30 others spreading across other countries such as India, Indonesia, Sudan, Lebanon, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Bangladesh. The attacker in the October truck attack that killed 8 in Manhattan was from Uzbekistan, and the December 11th attempted suicide bomber in New York City was from Bangladesh.

While the Islamic State’s caliphate is virtually non existent, the threat still remains. Expelling ISIS from holding territory in Iraq and Syria was a great victory. But we must now prepare for a change in their narrative and location. They will now rely on their affiliates to spread hate, instability, fear, and division. Their presence on the internet will be even harder to exterminate, and continues to recruit and spew propaganda. ISIS also went through an insurgency stage like this in 2008, due to increases in US troops in Iraq around that time period, and defeated worse than they are now in 2010. ISIS’s leader is still at large, whereas many of their leadership was not at that time. And yet they came back stronger. This stage in the fight against ISIS could be the most important in getting rid of the group once and for all.

Sources:

“A Deeping US Military Involvement in Somalia”, Soufan Center, 11-22-17
“Affiliate World Map”, intelcenter.com.
African Poverty Facts, worldhunger.org
Gohel, Sajjan, “How Uzbekistan became ripe recruiting territory for ISIS”, CNN.com, 11-1-17
Guled, Abdi, Anna, Cara, “US Targeted IS in Somalia could be a ‘significant’ threat”, apnews.com, 11-13-17
Hassan, Hassan, “ISIL 2.0: a terror group in full insurgency mode”, the national.ae, 11-15-17
“Islamic State thriving in Somalia:UN Report”, yahoo.com, 11-10-17
Lebovich, Andrew, “The Real Reason US Troops are in Niger”, foreignpolicy.com,
Leigh, Karen, French, Jason, Juan, Jovi, “Islamic State and Its Affiliates” graphics.wsj.com
Lister, Charles, “Al-Qaeda vs. ISIS”, Middle East Institute, 11/17
McLaughlin, Elizabeth, “Behind the ISIS group that ambushed US forces in Niger”, abcnews.com, 10-18-17
Rahmani, Bardia, Tanco, Andrea, “ISIS’s Growing Caliphate: Profiles of Affiliates”, Wilson Center.
UN list of least developed countries, UN.org
Youssef, Nour, “Motives in Egypt’s Deadliest Terrorist Attack: Religion and Revenge”, nytimes.com, 12-1-17

The Islamic State’s Caliphate as we know it has ended.  Last week Raqqa, the self-proclaimed capital of the caliphate, became liberated. U.S. Backed forces have stated that all major military operations in the Syrian city have ceased.  Does this mean the end of ISIS? Certainly not.  But it does raise the question, what is next for the caliphate and organization itself?  

In the next several weeks we will explore different aspects of life after ISIS in a series of articles.  Many foreign policy strategies the last three years have focused on counterterrorism and not long term strategic developments.  Conflicts between state actors and their affiliated groups will now take center stage in the Middle East.   

We will be taking a deeper dive into aspects like who governs parts of Syria such as the huge city of Raqqa, which has experienced over 3,000 bombs being dropped on the city, and only 1%  of its pre-war population remaining.  Aspects such as Iran’s influence on the region.  And aspects of how will ISIS and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi adapt now that they have no territory, if he is even still alive (which I believe he is).   

The first post-caliphate aspect is taking place as we speak in norther Iraq.  Northern Iraq is largely populated with Kurds, whereas the rest of Iraq is mainly Arab.  The Kurds would like to create their own independent country, Kurdistan, and voted on an independence referendum on September 25^th.  Since the referendum was passed, things have deteriorated quickly in Kurdish held lands.  The main point of contention is in Kirkuk, and surrounding areas the Kurds have controlled since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 as well as the expelling of ISIS since 2014.   

The Kurds, and their armed fighters in Iraq the Peshmerga, have been central in the fight against ISIS.  They are even backed, trained, and armed by the U.S.  With ISIS now expelled from most of Iraq, and any major population center like Mosul, the Kurds and the Iraqi government are shifting focus.  The Kurds want to control and govern lands they’ve seized, and the government of Iraq and the Iraqi army want to take back lands they claim are rightfully theirs, because the land is inside the borders of Iraq.  

The Iraqi government, not pleased with the Kurdish independence referendum, and after weeks of threats, moved to retake Kirkuk and surrounding areas last Monday. They also moved to retake the Kurdish controlled oil fields.  The Kurds in Iraq make a good deal of their revenue from oil, and half of their oil comes from the oil fields in Kirkuk. The Iraqi army and Iraqi federal police are also US trained and equipped after the invasion of Iraq and more recently for the fight against ISIS.  So late Monday and early Tuesday morning you had one group with US supplied weapons fighting another group using US supplied weapons. Reports are that 5 US Humvees used by the Iraqi army were destroyed. Assisting the Iraqis were Shia fighting units backed by Iran called the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF).   

The Kurds vowed that they would not hand Kirkuk back, but that is exactly what happened Monday as the Iraqi army and the PMF’s moved into town. Tens of thousands of civilians fled the city, and the Peshmerga forces also withdrew after little fighting. Fighting the US Military described as a “misunderstanding”. Reports are surfacing that Iran and the Kurdish Peshmerga forces reached an agreement for them to peacefully leave Kirkuk. We will explore that scenario in a future article.  

This conflict puts the United States into a very difficult spot. The US has remained adamant that they won’t take sides in this conflict, as they do not want two groups they have armed, trained, and supported fighting one another. The US led coalition in Iraq supported both groups in the fight against ISIS.  Although, the US and coalition’s focus was much more on counterterrorism and not on long term strategic development in the Middle East. On one hand we have fully supported the Kurds in both Iraq and Syria. They will see any move to side with Iraq as a betrayal to them. Also, siding with Iraq means also siding with the PMF groups, and Iran, when President Trump just declared Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps troops as a terrorist organization. Iraq could see siding with the Kurds as a blow to an Iraqi government who we’ve tried to create, restore, and support for going on 15 years now.  

The US has warned the Iraqi government that the weapons were supplied for the fight against the Islamic State, and not the Kurds. They have gone as far as to say if the weapons are used improperly, the train-and-equip program will stop. We currently have 5,000 troops in Iraq, with US commanders and advisers in the vicinity of Kirkuk.  The US also needs to hinder any further movement by Iran into Iraq just as they have done in Syria. The US criticized  the Kurdish independence referendum, which included areas outside of their autonomous control, just like Kirkuk. As well as the fact that they did not want the US to oversee the negotiations between the Iraqi government and the Kurdish government.  

This is a situation of high intensity, and one that probably won’t be resolved quickly.  Although, unless a plan is put into place soon, ISIS and Iran will benefit from Iraqi in-fighting.  ISIS is still not completely defeated, as we will talk about in a future article.  And Iran is trying to influence more and more groups as we will also see in an upcoming edition.  The time to develop a long-term strategy for state actors is now, or the US could be spending many more years bogged down in the Middle East.   

Sources:

Browne, Gareth,, “”Abadi’s capture of  Kirkuk might just save Iraq” The New Arab, 10-17-17

Cafarella, Jennifer,  “The “War  after   ISIS”  begins in Iraq”, Institute for the Study of  War, 10–15-17

Collard, Rebecca, “Kurds feel twice betrayed as Iraqi  forces  take  disputed Kirkuk”, Time Magazine, 10-16-17

Gould, Joe, Copp, Tara, ‘Pentagon  says Iraqi train-and-equip mission could end if attacks  on Kurds continue”,  Defensenews.com,, 10–16-17

Gramer, Robbie,  McLeary,  Paul, “Iraqi–Kurdish  Clash in Kirkuk  Opens Door  to More  Iranian Influence”, Foreignpolicy.com, 10-14-17

Lister, Tim, “Kirkuk: A  crisis waiting  to  happen, with consequences for region”, CNN.com, 10-16-17

Loveluck,, Louisa,  Sly, Liz, “The defeat of ISIS in Raqqa test U.S. Commitment to Syrian Kurds”,  The Washington  Post, 10-17-17

Petkova, Mariya, “What  will happen  to post-ISIL Raqqa?””, Al  Jazeera, 10-17-17

Stewart,  Phil, Ali, Idrees, “A divided Iraq  tests U.S. Influence as fight against Islamic State wanes”,  Reuters.com,, 10-16-17

Trofimov, Yaroslav, “Iraqi Kurdiistan’s Losing Gamble”, The  Wall  Street Journal, 10–16-17

Wing, Joel, “Fighting breaks  out between federal forces and peshmerga in salahaddin and Kirkuk”, Musings on Iraq, 10-16-17

Zucchino,  David, “Iraqi forces seep into Kirkuk,  checking Kurdish  independence drive”,  The New York Times, 10-16-17

The Islamic State (IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh) for the past several years has called for increased terrorist attacks during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. At the time of this writing, we have already seen 9 horrible terrorist attacks since around the beginning of Ramadan. Most notably the suicide bomb killing 22 innocent civilians at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England. So let’s take a look into why the Islamic State ramps up attacks during their holiest month, even if it means harming innocent civilians and children.

Ramadan is the 9th month in the Islamic Calendar. This year it runs between May 26th to June 24th. Yes, many of the Muslim faith in Muslim dominant countries use a different calendar than we do, the Islamic calendar. This calendar is based upon moon phases, rather than the sun, therefore it is about 10 days shorter than the system we use here in the United States. It first started in our year 622 AD, so in many Muslim countries it is currently year 1438. Ramadan Mubarak is the traditional greeting during this month, and simply translates to “blessed Ramadan” .

So what occurs during Ramadan? Ramadan is a holy month because this is believed to be the month that the Quran was revealed. During this month they believe the gates of heaven are opened and the gates of hell are closed. Those of the Muslim faith are required to fast during daylight hours for the entire month (as well as abstain from any type of drinks, smoking, and sexual activity). Pre-dawn and after sunset gatherings and meals are served. Prayers are also increased to the point where the whole Quran will be recited once the month is completed. All of this groundwork leads us to the fact that it is a belief that good actions and prayers bring a greater reward when conducted during Ramadan. Salafi-jihadist such as IS just have a very different view of “good actions”.

In the past Ramadan was seen as a peaceful time when even warring factions of world leaders and rebel groups would conduct cease-fires. Now, the Islamic State has literally declared “all out war” on western countries as well as Middle Eastern countries. They have issued these statements via YouTube, their news outlets, and websites. This has all been conducted under the belief that these acts and vicious styles of martyrdom will earn an increased reward. Even if it means attacking innocent civilian women and children.

In 2014, now slain IS spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani called for these types of attacks, leading the way to more attacks on “soft targets”. Traditionally attacks are conducted on government, security forces, or military targets. Now horrific attacks on women and children are permissible if they are intermingled with men. They have even claimed that attacks with children fatalities and casualties are in retaliation to children killed in Syrian airstrikes.

That style of attack has been evident by the most visible Ramadan time period attack, the suicide bombing by Salman Abedi at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England that killed 22 individuals and injuring over 100. Just the type of pop venue that would be and was packed with teenagers and families. Then in Iraq on May 29, IS conducted twin bombings. The first occurred in the evening outside of a popular ice cream parlor as families were breaking their Ramadan fast. The attack killed around 15 and injured over 30. The second occurred earlier that morning outside a government pension office as several older adults were lined up to receive their retirement checks. This attack killed around 12 and wounding over 40 people. The Islamic State, a Sunni group, claimed these attacks were directed towards gatherings of Shia muslims. Then in Egypt, IS gunmen opened fire on a bus full of Coptic Christian families killing 28 individuals and wounding dozens more.

Since the start of Ramadan, they have also conducted attacks more associated with their traditional ways. The worst attack so far occurred in the capital of Afghanistan, Kabul. In the early morning rush hour traffic on May 31st, a semi truck laden with explosives blew up in the Kabul economic and embassy district. This is an area full of government workers from several different countries. The attack killed over 100 and injured over 450 people. One of the deadliest attacks since the Afghan War began. No one has claimed the attack at the time of this writing, but IS or the Haqqani Network, a close associate of the Taliban, are the major suspects. Sandwiched on either side of that attack, Taliban suicide bombers conducted attacks at security checkpoints near Khost and Jalalabad, Afghanistan killing 18 and 7 security personnel respectfully.

Most recently, we had another terrorist attack in London. They drove a van into a crowd of pedestrians on the London Bridge, and then proceeded to stab a bunch of people in nearby Borough Market. All three attackers were killed by the police. But not before they were able to kill 7 people and wound around 50 more. The Islamic State did claim responsibility for the attack. Using vehicles and knifes as weapons for attacks has also been called for, as they are easier to obtain.

As you can see if you go through the article and do a rough count, since around the start of Ramadan we have seen over 920 individuals killed or injured. The fact remains, we still have a few weeks to go. Especially with Laylat al-Qadr approaching. Laylat al-Qadr, or the “Night of Power”, is the holiest night of the year for Muslims. It typically occurs on the 27th night of Ramadan. Many consider acts or prayers given on this night being equal to 1,000 months of activity. Unfortunately we could see increased attacks as this day approaches.

As previously described, the Islamic State has called for increased attacks during Ramadan for years, and this year is no different. Although no matter the organization, the salifi-jihadi ideology of a greater reward for attacks during Ramadan is heinous and incorrect, and used as a great excuse to wreak havoc and terror. Havoc and terror that includes the killing of the innocent people, including the elderly, women, and children. Hopefully we will not hear of any more terror attacks as the month progresses, as unfortunately the news seems to be filled with them in the past few weeks.

Sources:
Alkhouri, Laith, “ISIS suicide bomber at Jalalabad security checkpoint”, NBC News, 6-1-2017
Amarasingam, Amarnath; Winter, Charlie, “ISIS’s perverse, bloody interpretation of Ramadan”, TheAtlantic.com, 5-26-2017
Bergen, Peter, “It could be a long, deadly Ramadan”, CNN.com, 5-31-2017
Daftari, Lisa, “ISIS issues call for “all out war” in the west during Ramadan”, The Foreign Desk, Reuters, 5-25-2017
Daftari, Lisa, “UK police hunt Manchester bombers network, angered by U.S. leaks”, The Foreign Desk, Reuters, 5-25-2017
Donati, Jessica; Amiri, Ehsamullah; “Taliban suicide bomber kills at least 18 in Afghanistan”, Wall Street Journal, 5-27-2017
Gilbert, David, “ISIS takes credit for ice cream shop bombing in Baghdad”, Vicenews.com, 5-30-2017
Ingel, Richard; Smith, Alexander; Johnson, Alex; Siemaszko; “Manchester Bomb Suspect Said to Have Ties to al-Qaeda, Terrorism Training Abroad”, NBCNews.com, 5-23-2017
Katz, Rita, “ISIS isn’t done targeting kids after Manchester attack”, thedailybeast.com, 5-23-2017
“London attack: Police ‘know identities of killers’”, BBC News, 6-5-2017
Mashal, Mujib; Abed, Fahim; “Kabul bombing kills at least 80, shaking city center”, New York Times, 5-31-2017
Religions:Ramadan, BBCNews.com
Qiblawi, Tamara; Tawfeeq, Mohammed; Mackintosh, Eliza; “ISIS targets the young, then the old in twin Baghdad Bombings”, CNN.com, 5-30-17
Zaimov, Stogan, “ISIS targets children in Ramadan attack killing 31 in ice cream shop bombing”, christianpost.com, 5-30-2017