Buzz
On November 13, 2015, three groups of attackers carried out bombings and opened fire in Paris, resulting in the deaths of nearly 130 individuals. This tragic event became the deadliest terrorist attack in Europe since the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Within moments, ISIS claimed responsibility for the carnage.
ISIS, also referred to as ISIL, Islamic State, and Daesh (a name they despise, hence its widespread use), is the most well-funded and powerful terrorist organization in history. It controls large portions of Iraq and Syria and has orchestrated devastating attacks across the Middle East. Until November 13, analysts had believed the group's influence was confined to the region. However, in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, world leaders have been forced to quickly reevaluate their stance towards the group, with an all-out war with the caliphate now looking increasingly inevitable.
This does not mean that war is either desired or guaranteed, but the attacks in Paris might have been the tipping point. Since 2014, tensions in the Levant have been escalating, creating conditions that could lead to a full-scale conflict.
10. Hollande’s Statement
In the wake of the November 13 attacks, French President Francois Hollande addressed the nation, announcing three days of national mourning. He didn’t mince words. Upon learning that ISIS had taken responsibility, he called the assault an “act of war.”
This wasn’t just empty talk. France has been actively involved in a series of airstrikes against ISIS positions in Syria. Just two days after the Paris explosions, French fighter jets launched a massive bombing campaign on the group's stronghold in Raqqa. Twelve warplanes dropped 20 bombs on a terrorist training facility and an ISIS weapons depot. According to a local anti-ISIS activist group, which opposes the airstrikes, Raqqa was severely impacted, with entire buildings destroyed.
This move signaled France’s commitment to taking a larger role in the US-led coalition against ISIS. Others are already urging for even more drastic measures. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared that the time for rhetoric had passed. In the US, Republicans have called for thousands of American boots on the ground in Syria. While Hollande has yet to suggest that France will seek NATO's support, the atmosphere in Paris has clearly shifted toward a wartime mentality, as has been the case elsewhere.
9. Legal Justification
One of the main obstacles for advocates of war with ISIS is that it could be considered illegal. International law prohibits violent actions against another state, even if that state (Syria) cannot control the extremists within its borders. Additionally, ISIS’s self-declared caliphate lacks international recognition. A recent ruling by the International Court of Justice in the case of Israel v. Palestine clarified that self-defense cannot justify attacks on non-state actors.
However, a war against ISIS isn't necessarily out of the question. There are at least two potential legal avenues that France could pursue to initiate military action against the Islamic State. One is invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. As one of NATO's core principles, Article 5 states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all members. This means that the United States could legally view the Paris attacks as an attack on itself, paving the way for a potential full-scale intervention.
The second option is to disregard ISIS’s status as a 'non-state.' A legal expert from The Washington Post argues that ISIS could be seen as a state-like entity due to its control over large territories in Syria and Iraq. If ISIS is considered to function as a state—which it undeniably does—then justifying a full invasion legally becomes much easier.
8. Russian Interests
One of the main reasons the Syrian conflict is so complicated is due to the multitude of competing interests involved. In addition to the various local factions, both Iran and Saudi Arabia have stakes in the situation. More critically from the US perspective, Russia is also deeply involved.
Under the guise of fighting ISIS, Moscow has been deploying aircraft to bomb anti-Assad rebel forces, thereby reinforcing the dictator's position. This has forced the US and its allies to proceed cautiously in the region. A direct clash between the US and Russia could easily escalate into something that could trigger World War III.
However, the Paris attacks may have softened tensions between the two major world powers, at least on this issue. After a G20 summit held shortly after the attacks, Russian President Putin and US President Obama reached a landmark agreement on the situation in Syria.
At this point, the agreement is still in its infancy, simply calling for the UN to facilitate talks between Assad and anti-Assad forces (excluding ISIS). Despite its limited scope, the agreement is significant. Until now, Putin's biggest fear was that the US would overthrow one of his allies and replace him with a pro-Western government. With that fear alleviated by the agreement, the West is in a stronger position to push Putin into taking decisive action against ISIS.
Russia has undeniable stakes in defeating ISIS. The group has claimed responsibility for bringing down a Russian plane, killing 224 civilians, though this has yet to be independently verified. Regardless, ISIS has openly threatened Russia. Confronted with such a direct threat, Putin may alter his approach and take more aggressive steps against the caliphate.
7. Turkey's Role and Interests
Turkey's involvement in Syria has been anything but straightforward. In August, Turkey began airstrikes against ISIS, but before that, it had been targeting Kurdish forces, who are the primary fighters against ISIS. There are signs emerging that Ankara may no longer see Kurdish separatists as its top priority. Since October 2015, President Erdogan has been urging the West to establish an 'ISIS-free zone' in northern Syria.
The reason behind this shift is tragically simple. On October 10, Ankara was struck by twin suicide bombings that killed nearly 100 people. It was the deadliest bombing in Turkish history and is believed to have been carried out by ISIS. Just one day after the Paris attacks, a suspected militant detonated a bomb in an apartment in southeastern Turkey in a desperate attempt to avoid capture. ISIS has promised to continue targeting Turkey.
Until now, Turkey's involvement in Syria has been complicated by its opposition to Assad. But with the Vienna agreement between Russia and Turkey now in place, the situation may be shifting. Erdogan is now pushing more aggressively than almost any other world leader for stronger action against the ISIS caliphate.
6. ISIS Is Fighting on Multiple Fronts
Here’s a question: What do Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and Saudi Arabia all share in common? The answer is that they all have a mutual enemy: ISIS.
In the latter part of 2015, ISIS began provoking nearly every major group worldwide. The day before the Paris attacks, ISIS targeted a marketplace in Beirut, killing 44 people. As a result, Hezbollah—previously labeled a terrorist group—declared a 'long war' on ISIS and vowed to ramp up its efforts in Syria. Just a few months earlier, the caliphate had declared its own war against Hamas, pledging to take control of the Gaza Strip. ISIS also issued threats against Iran and, in the summer of 2015, carried out suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia.
With ISIS antagonizing so many different groups, war seems almost unavoidable, even if the West decides not to intervene. This is not the careful alliance-building typical of most insurgent movements, like when the IRA conducted joint training with Colombia’s FARC. No, this is the type of reckless behavior only a fanatical cult with a death wish would embrace. Even Al-Qaeda is now attacking and destroying ISIS targets. This leads to a key question: What exactly is ISIS hoping to achieve?
5. ISIS Is Eager for a War
When Hollande referred to the Paris attacks as an 'act of war,' he meant it literally. ISIS isn't motivated by revenge or by scaring Westerners into staying indoors. Unlike bin Laden, they don’t seek political concessions in exchange for their violence. Their goal is to spark an apocalyptic, regional war.
We’ve understood this since 2014 when ISIS’s leadership responded to the first US air strikes by publicly criticizing Obama for not deploying ground troops. Instead of fearing a foreign army, ISIS would actually embrace it. Dr. Peter Neumann, Director of the International Center for the Study of Radicalization, explained to the BBC that this would validate their victimhood narrative. They would portray the invading forces as part of a new crusade, attempting to depict the West as being against all Muslims. To them, war would be a powerful propaganda tool.
Then, there's the small matter of the apocalypse. ISIS genuinely believes they are fulfilling a role in bringing about the end of the world. At the heart of their ideology is a final, destructive battle that they are desperate to ignite. They want war and will employ any means to achieve it.
4. More Attacks Are Coming
ISIS doesn't carry out random attacks. Every action they take is meticulously planned to maximize visibility and further their objectives. To ensure success, they adhere to a very specific strategy.
A decade ago, Abu Bakr Naji penned a manifesto titled The Management of Savagery/Chaos. It instructs fighters to target vulnerable, 'soft' sites, like those struck during the Paris attacks. It advises recruiters to attract young men and teenagers, channeling their inherent rebelliousness. The document also directs leaders to pressure the US into abandoning its media war and to engage in direct military action on the ground.
As long as this objective remains unmet, attacks following the playbook’s guidelines will persist. The ultimate aim is to dismantle what ISIS calls the 'Gray Zone.' Defined in a 2015 ISIS magazine editorial, this is the state of most Muslims worldwide, who neither fully align with Western actions in the Middle East nor fully support extremist ideologies. ISIS’s strategy is to force these Muslims into a decisive choice between Islam and Western society. Once this divide is clear, the war can commence.
Most reasonable people would argue that the conflict ISIS seeks to provoke doesn’t really exist. Their attacks are designed to create that very conflict. Every time a radical imam denounces the West or praises an attack, it benefits ISIS. Similarly, when people react to an atrocity by calling for the deportation of all Muslims, they play right into ISIS’s hands. The group has a long-term agenda, and until they spark their desired war, these attacks will continue.
3. The Current Stalemate Can't Last
In late September 2015, General Martin Dempsey, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that the ISIS situation in Syria had reached a “stalemate.” In retrospect, it's clear that he was correct. With many competing interests in the region, most of them equally strong, the current deadlock seems impossible to break. While Iraq is slowly pushing ISIS out, the situation in Syria remains as stagnant as ever.
As recently as early November 2015, Western leaders were reluctantly accepting the reality of the situation, even though they didn’t want to. But the Paris attacks, along with the suspected ISIS bombing of a Russian plane, have shifted the dynamics completely. This is no longer just a regional conflict that can be contained until a solution emerges. It has become a global war, wreaking havoc and claiming lives around the world. If the current situation persists, there will only be more senseless deaths.
The right course of action is unclear. Aside from a small contingent of special forces, the Obama administration appears more inclined to support Kurdish forces and share intelligence than to commit to full-scale military intervention (with the exception of special forces). The president is wary that entering another Middle Eastern war could entangle the U.S. in a conflict with no clear exit strategy. On the other hand, inaction may come to define him as the Neville Chamberlain of our era.
The problem is no one has a definite answer. It’s possible that American forces will ultimately eliminate the ISIS threat. Alternatively, a coalition led by Russia, involving countries like Iran, armed Kurdish militants, or a NATO-led invasion spearheaded by France, might hold the key. But there’s also the risk that more warfare will only worsen the situation, paving the way for something even more dangerous than ISIS to emerge.
In summary, we don’t have a clear solution. But the status quo is untenable.
2. Ground Operations Are The Only Effective Solution So Far
Amid all the attention on the Paris attacks, it's easy to forget that November 13 was actually a tough day for ISIS. In Iraq, a force made up of Kurdish peshmerga, Kurdish communist, and Yazidi fighters successfully reclaimed Sinjar from ISIS. With U.S. air support, nearly 10,000 troops moved on the city that ISIS had controlled for 15 months. Within hours, the ISIS forces offered minimal resistance and the city fell.
This defeat was a significant blow to the terrorist group. Sinjar and the surrounding areas had served as a critical supply route for jihadists between Syria and Mosul, one of ISIS's key strongholds in Iraq. Losing control of the city so swiftly was a major embarrassment. It also revealed an uncomfortable truth about the ISIS conflict: when ground forces are involved, the caliphate tends to falter.
Kurdish forces are already gearing up to liberate Mosul, with the UN bracing for an influx of refugees if the city is freed. Troops have begun retaking parts of the surrounding Kurdish regions, and the outlook is grim for ISIS’s remaining forces in Iraq. If Mosul falls, the group will likely be forced to retreat into Syria.
When that time comes, the future remains uncertain. The Kurdish forces are focused on liberating their own land and will likely not pursue ISIS all the way into Syria. However, given that air strikes have had limited success, some form of ground intervention might soon be necessary to make real progress.
1. Air Strikes Aren’t Achieving Results
The U.S. began its air campaign against ISIS in August 2014, and since then, the American-led coalition has conducted 5,000 separate air strikes, eliminating over 10,000 ISIS fighters. On paper, this would seem like a significant blow to the group. Yet, reports suggest that the air strikes haven’t made a substantial impact. In August 2015, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that ISIS was no weaker than it had been before the air strikes started.
That’s not to say the air strikes have been entirely ineffective. Although ISIS remains as strong as ever, they haven't grown either. When the air strikes commenced, ISIS appeared poised to conquer all of Iraq. Since then, their territorial gains have stalled, and in some areas, they’ve even lost ground. Russian bombings—which are often heavier and more indiscriminate than Western precision strikes—have also put pressure on the group, even if most Russian strikes have targeted areas outside ISIS-held territories.
However, ISIS is still far from collapsing and has expanded its influence. It was previously thought that the group lacked the ability to strike beyond the Middle East. But the Paris attacks demonstrated that ISIS’s reach is much broader than originally believed, even after 15 months of relentless bombing. While air strikes might be providing some defense for the crumbling Iraqi state, it’s clear that this approach has limited effectiveness.
