Is this World War III? - Yoav Limor

by Yoav Limor

The Brussels attacks made the West realize it is time to step up its war on Islamic State • The battle ahead will be long and brutal, but if the moderate Arab states and the West band together, it can be won.

Staff and rescuers stand outside Brussels' Zaventem Airport, Wednesday |Photo credit: Reuters

If there is one assumption shared by every intelligence agency in Israel and worldwide, is that Tuesday's deadly terrorist attacks on the Zaventem Airport and the Maelbeek Metro in Brussels, which left 31 people dead and 270 wounded, will not be the last strikes mounted by the Islamic State group. 

On the contrary: Even the most optimistic experts, those who believe the carnage in the European Union's capital will finally make Western nations join forces in earnest in the war on terror, know there is a long road ahead and that vanquishing terrorism, if that is even possible, will be a brutal and bloody battle. 

One thing must be said: Islamic State is not invincible. The how of it is debatable, but this group is not beyond defeating, especially if real, multipronged international action is mounted in multiple theaters. Information must be shared, limitations must be removed, and above all -- actual commitment is necessary. The West keeps saying it wants to fight Islamic State, well -- it is time to stop talking and take action. 

The Middle East is the simpler part of the equation. Islamic State has roughly 50,000 operatives in the area between Syria and Iraq and so far, wherever it encountered organized opposition forces it was defeated. This happened in its fight against the Kurds in northern Iraq, the U.S.-trained Kurds in northern Syria, and in nearly every battle fought against Hezbollah on the Syria-Lebanon border.

The conclusion is simple: A formidable force, especially one with nothing to lose, is militarily superior to Islamic State. Even the battered Iraqi army has been able to deal the jihadi group a few blows lately, the result of U.S.-directed operations.  

The problem is, such forces are few, and they fight exclusively in their home territory. Islamic State faces a much smaller existential threat in the other areas it controls. It may be fighting on all fronts, but as of now, the "caliphate" it formed between Iraq and Syria is under no actual threat.

The aerial campaign mounted by the West against the group in Iraq and Syria have taken a toll on Islamic State, undercutting mostly its financial ability. The oil trade, which makes up the bulk of the group's cash flow, has suffered significant blows, mostly by Russian airstrikes, and since the Nov. 13 Paris attack, by French airstrikes as well. The U.S. focused on the jihadi group's other infrastructure, striking symbolic targets such as the central bank in Mosul, the group's Iraqi "capital." The city of al-Raqqa, the Islamic State's "capital" in northeastern Syria, has suffered significant blows, and at times the group is unable to maintain vital services in the area. 

Still, these difficulties do not indicate the end of Islamic State is near – or even far, for that matter. That would require actual battle, including putting Western boots on the ground. In theory, the counterforce should comprise U.S. and NATO troops, just as it was in Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem is that even if this were to take place, the public perception, at least in Muslim eyes, would be that once again the crusaders had overrun Muslim lands, and from there, radicalization and another war will be within striking distance.

The solution lies with Islamist liberation -- let Arabs liberate Arabs. Behind closed doors, this issue is the subject of a vigorous debate between the moderate Arab states, and between them and the West. 

The idea is that the Sunni states threatened by Islamic State, led by Saudi Arabia and including the Persian Gulf states and potentially Jordan, Egypt and -- under the right circumstances -- Turkey, will form a coalition and go to war. This coalition will have American, European, and Russian aerial support, as well as the best Western intelligence available (including, indirectly, from Israel) at its disposal, but the boots on the ground will be Arab. 

This notion is far from any concrete plan, and right now it remains an idea thrown back and forth between diplomats, and security and intelligence officials, but anyone truly striving to vanquish Islamic State has to promote this grand design. 

West dragging its feet

Whatever form the plan to defeat Islamic State takes, the West currently has a bigger headache than the Middle East, and the source of the pain is in its own backyard.

Sometime in the autumn of 2015 Islamic State's leadership decided to pull out all the stops and mount a relentless attack on the West. Intelligence and counterterrorism experts disagree on the cause for the group's rampage: Some believe it is a power play meant to compensate for its fraying control over its "caliphate"; others argue the group is struggling to sustain momentum and seeks to carry out major attacks to maintain a victorious image despite suffering major territorial setbacks and blows to its infrastructure; and others still say it was a pragmatic decision, seeking to demonstrate the now-matured operational abilities the group has developed across Europe.  

While the motive does matter, the results matter even more. Since this decision was made, Islamic State operatives worldwide have carried out dozens of terrorist attacks, killing thousands of people. Some, like the Oct. 31 downing of Russian Metrojet Flight 9268 over northern Sinai, the Nov. 13 Paris attacks, and now the Brussels bombings, have made headlines, but others -- in Libya, Tunisia, and Lebanon, to name a few -- failed to resonate at loudly for the simple fact their victims were not western.  

Orders for all major attacks came from the jihadi group's headquarters in al-Raqqa. Western intelligence agencies know of a special, separate command center that devises Islamic State attacks overseas, but the nature of its chain of command remains elusive, as is the nature of the control it has on the operatives on the ground. One thing, however, is clear: Whoever is pulling Islamic State's strings is in al-Raqqa. 

Western intelligence is still struggling to substantiate the Syria-based headquarters' modus operandi. In some cases, like the downing of the Russian jet over Sinai, the al-Raqqa connection became clear only after the fact, while in other cases, like the Brussels bombing, it was substantiated beforehand. 

Several intelligence agencies had alerted Belgian authorities to the credible threat of an imminent terrorist attack on a major airport or train station in the country just days prior to Tuesday's deadly attacks. This kind of warning is a counterterrorism agency's dream, but somehow, the Belgians managed to do nothing about it. 

Such intelligence is in abundance and over the past few months it has resulted in dozens of raids and arrests in Germany, Britain, Spain, France, Egypt, and Turkey. Some leads proved true, others proved false, but the conclusion was the same: meticulous intelligence gathering and cross-border information sharing either minimizes the harm caused by terrorist attacks or thwarts them altogether. 

Had Belgian authorities done the minimum – setting up checkpoints in and around the airport and increasing security forces' presence across the Metro, the bombers might have canceled their nefarious plan or, at worst, they would have targeted security forces, thus significantly reducing civilian casualties.

Unlike the Belgians, other European nations have adapted to the new reality. The British did so in 2005 following the 7/7 London bombings, and Spain did so a year earlier, following the Madrid train bombing. The Germans have always had strict security protocols, and France got with the program following the Nov. 13 Paris attacks. Some EU countries have already revised legislation, and while that is a necessary and welcome step, it is still far off the mark. In the absence of a pan-European consensus and in the absence of borders, Europe will continue to be easy prey for terrorists. 

The solution is multifaceted. First and foremost there is a need to understand the exact nature of the threat. In the past, Europe opted to ignore Palestinian terrorism, claiming it didn't really exist, or paying it to "go away," meaning to set its sights solely on Israelis and Jews. This perception is no longer relevant, as Islamic State sees Europe as a whole as a strategic target. No payment will change the jihadists' view of the "infidel" continent, and turning a blind eye to the situation is no longer an option. 

The next phase is intelligence gathering. This must target Islamic State assets both outside and in Europe. No group, no mosque, no school can be immune. One of the secrets of the Shin Bet security agency's success is its basic coverage on the ground, which includes multipronged intelligence gathering on all levels, ranging from local assets to secret agents and surveillance. This has to be the case in every city, village, and town in Europe, otherwise the Brussels suburbs of Molenbeek and Anderlecht will continue to serve as safe havens for terrorists.

Next come raids and interrogations, at times using unorthodox measures, followed by administrative arrests, and/or trials and lengthy prison sentences. The West would be wise in sparing no effort on extensive manhunts for top operatives on caliphate grounds, and trying them in European courts, preferably in the International Criminal Court in The Hague. If Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or any of his top henchmen, be captured and tried publicly, it could serve as a signal that the West means business.  

But above all, Europe must invest in education, legislation, and the economy, which is supposed provide the younger generation of European Muslims with actual future prospects, so that they have no reason to leave Europe for a brainwashing trip in "Daeshstan."

Alongside essential security circles, which are currently missing, more effective border control, and efficient collaboration by all intelligence and law enforcement agencies, will be able to significantly reduce the threat, even if it does take years to eradicate. 

An uphill battle  

There was something provincial, ridiculous, and childish, in some Israeli politicians' statements following the Brussels attacks. Some could barely stop themselves from gloating at Belgium's misfortune, while others tried to get the better of each other with superlatives for Israel's superior counterterrorism capabilities. 

Both seem to have forgotten the facts: not only those pertaining to hundreds of years of unvanquished terrorism, or the surge of Palestinian violence that has refused to ebb for the past six months, but also the simple fact that even Israel's greatest victory over terrorism -- ending the suicide bombings that became the hallmark of the Second Intifada -- took almost five years to achieve. And this was done in a relatively small and fenced-in area, under Israel's full operational and intelligence control -- a far cry from the challenge Europe is facing. 

Israel would be wiser to tone down both its criticism and its advice, not only because anyone seeking empathy should know how to show it, but because Israel has been and remains a prime target for terrorist attacks. 

It has yet to be determined whether the suicide bomber that struck Istanbul's Istiklal Street Saturday, killing four people and wounding 45, had indeed targeted the nearby group of Israeli tourists or whether the location of the attack was random, but the simple truth is that Islamic State proxies exist in Sinai and the Golan Heights, and while they currently have more pressing fights on their hands, they are most likely biding their time.

One of the things the U.S., Britain, and Italy are most concerned with at the moment is intelligence indicating Islamic State is planning to take over natural resources in Libya, to make up for its losses in Iraq and Syria. 

Like in Iraq and Syria, resolving the situation in Libya will require putting boots on the ground -- something that is not even being considered at this time. The U.S. has ordered an airstrike on Islamic State strongholds in Libya, but a wider campaign is not planned at the moment, despite the fact that Libya, which is closer to Europe than the Middle East, poses a potentially bigger threat because of the ease in which terrorists and weapons could cross into Europe.

Meanwhile, despite several terrorist attacks over the past few weeks, Turkey continues to play both ends against the middle, fighting Islamic State on the one hand while turning a blind eye to its operations on the other. 

Turkey remains the gateway through which many Europeans who have joined Islamic State cross back to their homelands, while simultaneously pushing refugees to Europe, despite its pledge to grant them temporary sanctuary, in exchange for an EU commitment for grants amounting to billions of euros. 

Some in the West are already calling to impose sanctions on Turkey, or at least limit its NATO membership. These are only a handful of calls, but they may become louder if the wave of terrorism continues to pound Europe. 

Western intelligence agencies also share a pessimistic premise assuming that making actual headway in the war on terror will take time, and innocent blood will be spilled. Even if Western intelligence officials do not share Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon's opinion that "this is the third world war," they have come to realize that this is a far more complex and brutal fight than the West has ever known.

Yoav Limor

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=32633

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.