The past years have witnessed key transformations in the nature of the fight against terrorism, which has metamorphosed from a direct war against the terrorist organizations into their being used as a tool by some countries to achieve political goals

Ibrahim Ali* (South24)

The Arab region, especially Syria, is witnessing drastic transformations in the security and political scene after the Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) catapulted into the forefront despite it being designated in the international terrorist list by the United States. This development raises essential questions about the future of counterterrorism and the role of regional and international players in shaping this complicated scene. This is in addition to the contradictions of the new scene in this Arab country.

Undoubtedly, the rise of HTS constitutes a new counterterrorism challenge which obligates the international community to reevaluate its traditional strategy. On the one hand, there is a need to think of political and diplomatic solutions parallel to the military ones to address the radical reasons for terrorism. On the other, this requires deeper international cooperation and a policy which is more clear, transparent, and legal to counter the tangled terrorism threat which goes beyond the geographical borders.

Will the US Change its Counterterrorism Approach?

As a major power, the United States is facing major challenges to reshape its counterterrorism strategy in light of the latest developments in Syria. The coming period will likely witness changes in the US’ approach by putting more focus on diplomacy and international cooperation while maintaining the deterrent military power. However, the most dangerous is using terrorist organizations as a tool to achieve political gains. 

For their part, Turkey and Qatar play a pivotal role in the region. Both of them have certain relationships with some organizations designated as terrorists. Despite their attempts to present themselves as backers of stability and development, Doha and Ankara’s complicated links with some extremist organizations stir serious questions about their real goals. History has many examples of countries that used terrorist organizations as a tool to achieve political gains.

The past years have witnessed key transformations in the nature of the fight against terrorism, which has metamorphosed from a direct war against the terrorist organizations into their being used as a tool by some countries to achieve political goals. Turkey and Qatar, along with Iran, play a pivotal role in this transformation, seeking to push Washington to change its counterterrorism strategy.

Instead of focusing on drastically eliminating these terrorist organizations, these groups have been directed to achieve certain political goals like what happened in Syria with the HTS. The HTS was supported and armed to be a tool in the regional conflict. This scenario has a big similarity with what happened in Afghanistan during the 1980s when the so-called ’Arab Mujahideen‘ were used to achieve long-term geopolitical goals. 

This dangerous transformation in the nature of the conflict against terrorism raises several questions about the real motives behind these policies and their impact on regional and international stability. Instead of eliminating terrorism, these policies have complicated the scene and fuelled the conflicts in a way that threatens to turn the region into a long-term conflict arena. This will constitute a direct threat to the security and stability of many states. 

Similar Aspects with Afghanistan 

There are several similarities between the status of the extremist groups in Afghanistan and Syria, the most important of which are as below:

-The Exploitation of Jihadists: In both cases, jihadists across the world were recruited and armed. They received promises of achieving lofty Islamic goals while the main objective behind the support was to make political and strategic gains. 

-Amplifying the Conflict: The conflict in both countries was amplified and turned into a long-term ideological one, leading to the destruction of infrastructure and the displacement of millions. 

-Difficult to Control: After achieving the desired goals, the supporting countries found it hugely difficult to control the jihadist groups that they had established and backed.

The phenomenon of exploiting the jihadist groups is considered a major challenge facing the international community. After training and arming these groups and supplying them with extremist ideology, they turn into an uncontrollable independent force. They may even turn into a threat to the countries which used them from the beginning like what happened in Afghanistan. In Syria, the same scenario is almost repeated where jihadist groups were used to confront the Syrian regime. However, these groups quickly went beyond the goals for which they were established, constituting a menacing threat to the region and the whole world such as the case with ISIS. 

Iraq’s Upside-Down Model

Undoubtedly, Washington's policy in supporting certain factions in the regional conflicts, like what happened in Iraq and Syria, has dire repercussions at the level of regional stability, deepening sectarian and ideological divisions. In Iraq, sectarian rifts have been largely deepened as a result of Washington’s decision to assign the counterterrorism mission to Shiite factions, along with the regular army. These factions settled scores with their Sunni rivals under the cover of counterterrorism.

In the case of Syria, Washington’s use of the HTS, a faction that is largely deemed as an extension of the Al-Qaeda-affiliate Al-Nusra Front, against the Iran-backed factions is a risky step that threatens to complicate the Syrian crisis further. Moreover, supporting an extremist faction would enhance the power of radical groups in the region, giving them the courage to seek for international legitimacy like what the Houthis do in Yemen. This encourages the spread of extremist ideologies and boosts recruitment within these factions. Additionally, this leads to the escalation of the armed conflict and increases the number of civilian victims.

Furthermore, in the case of Syria this approach will often lead to deepening of the sectarian and ideological divisions by presenting the conflict as a Sunni-Shiite one. This plays into the hands of regional powers’ agendas that aim to destabilize the region. Supporting certain factions at the expense of others may divide the Syrian opposition and weaken their ability to negotiate for a peaceful solution to the crisis.

Undoubtedly, this approach further complicates the Syrian crisis, making it hard to find a sustainable political solution. Instead of focusing on counterterrorism and unifying the international efforts to fight the ISIS, backing extremist factions may diffuse the international efforts and increase the complication of the political scene in Syria.

Thus, the policy of backing extremist factions in Syria is a short-sighted one that has dire consequences. Despite the pragmatic speech delivered by the HTS leaders, headed by Ahmed Al-Sharaa (Al-Julani), regarding their relationships with different Syrian parties and segments, this can’t alone guarantee a long-term strategic policy within Syria and the region.

Therefore, the international community should support political solutions to regional crises. This is in addition to focusing on counterterrorism and encouraging dialogue among different Syrian parties. It’s a mistake and misjudgement to look at what happened in Syria as being a successful counterterrorism experience through containment, seeking to move it to other countries that share similar political and security circumstances.

It was remarkable that after more than a decade of the war on terror in Iraq, the ISIS made a comeback and controlled half of the country. This is because supporting the group had a sectarian basis, at least from the perspective of Iraqi Sunnis.

The Yemeni Pattern

After the withdrawal of the former Soviet Union from Afghanistan, many Yemeni and Arab jihadis returned to Yemen after participating in the jihad against the Soviet forces. These jihadists, who were trained in fighting methods and guerilla wars, constituted the nucleus of establishing the Al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (AQAP) whose senior leaders engaged in the Yemeni war against South Yemen in 1994. The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) later designated it as the most dangerous Al-Qaeda branch globally.

The establishment of the AQAP reflects a repeated pattern in the history of international conflicts when these extremist groups are used as a tool to achieve short-term political goals without considering the resulting disastrous consequences. Jihadists who went to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union, backed by regional and international powers, turned later into a global security threat. The AQAP is still politically supported today by some religious and political groups against the Southern forces affiliated with the Southern Transitional Council (STC).

The Yemeni experience can cast a shadow on our understanding of the reasons for extremism. and terrorism. Jihadists are often victims of complex political and social conditions; they are capitalized by larger powers to advance their own agendas. Therefore, combating terrorism requires a comprehensive approach that takes into account the root causes of this phenomenon, in addition to confronting terrorist organizations at the military and security levels. The international community must cooperate closely to prevent the recurrence of past experiences and ensure that extremist groups are not used as a tool in international conflicts and employed for own interests.

Flexibility and Deception 

Accordingly, the international community shouldn’t be deceived by the flexibility and adaptation shown by extremist groups after using them as a tool to achieve political goals. While these organizations can adapt to fluctuating circumstances and change their speech and methods, this doesn’t really deny that they constitute a big future threat. This is because the terrorist organizations are advanced entities that are capable of adaptation, but they possess extremist ideology that can’t easily change. History proves that after achieving what they want, these organizations quickly reveal their real face and begin threatening the countries that backed them in the past. The Afghani experience is a typical example of this where the jihadist movements that were backed to confront the Soviet Union turned into a global threat after achieving their goal. The September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington confirmed this reality, along with the external operations carried by the AQAP. It can be said that being deceived by the flexibility shown by these organizations is dangerous. History repeats itself and we may see in the near future the recurrence of similar scenarios in other areas of the world.

Future Challenges

The most prominent future threats of bankrolling terrorist organizations include:

-Multiplicity of Goals: The goals of the countries that back extremist groups are multiple. This makes it difficult to predict their behaviour.

-Rapid Transformations: The regional scene is witnessing quick transformations which requires adapting new strategies constantly. 

-Ethical and Legal Challenges: States that support or exploit terrorism face ethical and legal challenges. They may be held accountable for the crimes committed by these organizations.

Finally, the rise of the HTS in Syria is a turning point in the path of counterterrorism. It presents new challenges in front of the international community. Confronting these challenges needs a multi-dimensional approach that combines military and political solutions. This is along with legal and ethical approaches that govern it. Moreover, the international community should monitor the role of regional countries and assess their impact on the violence hotspots in the region through using and directing these organizations to achieve political and other goals.