In the the 1980s, U.S. president Ronald Reagan received a group of Afghan mujahedeen in the White House, seeking to arm these fighters to resist an Afghan incursion by their mutual enemy: the Soviets.
Just a few years later, the successors of these men – with Osama bin Laden at the helm – launched the largest foreign attack on U.S. soil. A lack of foresight was in part to blame. In fairness, however, the attempt to co-opt the mujahedeen occurred before the United States had acquired meaningful experience in dealing with the volatile world of radical Islamists.
But after decades of bitter experience in this arena, the Barack Obama administration cannot be excused for its recent willingness to consider co-operating with Iran in the battle against a mutual enemy, ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. ISIS is a jihadist group that has captured world headlines in recent days with its conquest of several Iraqi cities.
ISIS poses an undeniable threat to the region, and must be combated. Yet, the elevation of Iran to the status of ally may have consequences that will outlive and overshadow the current danger from ISIS and its cohorts.
The U.S. government has recognized Iran as the world’s most egregious state sponsor of terror, and Canada has formalized this designation under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. Compounded by its military nuclear ambitions, incitement to genocide and brutal human rights violations, Iran represents a substantive threat to the international community.
The courting of Iran by the U.S. will only serve to enhance the former’s stature among its terrorist proxies and solidify its strategic footing in Iraq and the Shiite Crescent. This will enable Iran to benefit from the very instability it has helped to create and on which ISIS now thrives.
ISIS is an offshoot of Al Qaeda, which has long been supported by Iran. Thomas Joscelyn, my colleague at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has explained that the Iranian regime “has mastered duplicity and may have unknown reasons for [supporting] Al Qaeda’s operations. Al Qaeda has also been willing to work with Iran on multiple occasions since the early 1990s, despite the two sides’ fundamentally different theologies…” Last year, the RCMP arrested two terrorist suspects for plotting to derail a train running from the United States into Canada, claiming the men received “direction and guidance” from Al Qaeda elements in Iran.
Iran has also invested heavily in ensuring that Iraq remains its strategic partner. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose sectarian, anti-Sunni, pro-Shiite policies are largely responsible for the success of ISIS in Iraq, is backed by Shiite Iran. More inclusive outreach to the Sunni Arab community, such as a willingness to involve them in Iraq’s government and military, might help stem the tide of ISIS’ appeal to the mainstream population. But Iran, which systemically discriminates against its own minority groups, including Sunnis, will surely advise Maliki not to change political course but to fight harder.
Furthermore, the rise of ISIS is directly tied to the sectarian war in Syria, which has breathed new life into violent Islamist groups in both the Sunni and the Shiite camps. And Iran has played a key role in fuelling that conflict, supporting Bashar Assad financially and militarily as he has mercilessly slaughtered his own people and driven the civil war to its current heights.
The solutions to the ISIS problem may be complex and illusive. But western governments can start by recognizing the unfortunate reality that there is little difference between the enmity of ISIS and that of Iran toward the West, and that the enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend. The Middle East will inevitably produce other crises requiring permutations of unpalatable choices, but we must develop appropriate strategies for confronting one foe without enabling a far more dangerous one.
Sheryl Saperia is the director of policy for Canada at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.