The Dividing Lines: Prospects of Peace in the ongoing Syrian and Iraqi conflict.

The Dividing Lines

    The United States of America and our allies should be open to dividing Syria into several countries, cooperating with non-militant components of the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's organization and deploying larger numbers of US forces as it ratchets up pressure on the Tehran government to transparently assuage regional concerns over its Nuclear activities.  I want to be clear that I am not trying to dictate policy or complicate matters, I am simply trying to look at international problems from different perspectives in an effort to avoid group think and possibly find solutions that our framework of thinking caused us to overlook. Essentially, I am playing the role of devil's advocate. In intelligence, we are supposed to focus on the issues of highest pertience for the day and the conflict in Syria and Iraq is obviously high on the agenda. I'm modeling the insurgency in the Sunni dominated regions of Iraq and Syria as a griese fire. With a griese fire, you have two options: either blanket the fire and suffocate it completely or contain it and allow it to burn out. What you do not want to do is poor water on a grease fire which will only cause it to flare up and expand. As much respect as I have for the President's current strategic approach and full heartedly wish for his approach to work, the growing refugee crisis along the Turkish syrian border caused by 150,000 Kurdish refugees fleeing ISIS shows that the President's strategy is already facing problems. The impulse of beginning bombing in the North Eastern region of Syria is a politically calculated means of taking action without risking US military casualties. My argument is; however, that we are pouring water on a grease fire and as a result strengthening ISIS's resistance. In North Vietnam, similar massive bombing campaigns succeeded in killing Viet Kong, but they also had the adverse affect of strengthening the populaces resolve and solidifying their hatred for the US. Bombing is effective when it targets an enemies military and military related industries for command and control, such as the British bombing of Nazi ball bearing factories in Germany, but Klausiwitzian theories of bombing populations into submission have only really been effective when their was a clear top to bottom chain of command and nuclear weapons were employed, or bombing coincided with diplomatic communications offering the target a way out. While the US has precision weaponry and the combination of drones and satellites advances our ability to pin-point military targets with minimal collatoral damage even without on ground spotters and intelligence, even occasional misses, or even hits on targets where weapons are stored or troops are located can be distorted by enemy propaganda as an attack on a school or hospital where civilians were killed or injured.  If an enemy regime is hiding weapons amongst civilians it is lawful under the rules of warfare to target those weapons and targets as long as reasonable care is made to minimize civilian casualties.  When an enemy terrorist group is using civilians as human shields for their operations, the liability for those deaths; however, rests on the terrorist organization using the civilians as shields.  This is the truth of the matter as it relates to IDF's recent operations in Gaza against Hamas, and this is the truth of the matter in allied operations against Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi's terrorist organization.  Military leadership; however, still needs to consider the detrimental effects enemy propaganda and spin can have on prospects of victory.  It is important to recognize, that Abu Bakr's organization found success where Al-Qaeda failed, because it provided better basic government services and municipal level functionality than the Iraqi government was able to provide to Anbar Province.  It did this, by re-employing many of the technocrats of Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime that were replaced by novices during the US occupation.  Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi fused his administrative experience as a business leader with the tactical expertise of Chechen fighters experienced in waging an asymmetrical warfare against the Russians.  If US airstrikes have cooled his ambition, our coalition may be able and willing to provide acceptable terms for his survival on grounds of his unconditional surrender.  Similarly to the US decisions surrounding the emperor of Japan, it may be an American interest not to make a martyr out of him.  Recent studies released by the London School of Economics on the effects of targeted killings against leaders of terrorist organizations shows that their effectiveness is limited in dealing with unpopular and unorganized organizations.  Abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi is seemingly popular regionally and clearly very well organized. To be clear, this is not an effort to initiate negotiations, I am only applying the findings of leading scholars on the subject and making informed recommendations to our president, his allies and their militaries.   

     It is important that we are honest about what created the Islamic State.  Political, economic and legal oppression under Bashar Assad created conditions ripe for insurgency, but the policy sought by General Hayden where a strategy of arming the Sunni Opposition while the press and universities in Damascas encouraged civil disobedience and protest was paramount to ISIS's rapid rise. The Generals leading the Free Syrian Army had little actual control over the forces they served, acting as a conduit of arms for a wide array of resistance forces, some seeking liberal, secular and democratic transition, but many if not most composed of varying types of Islamists that have since been co-opted under the command of Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi. While the CIA may not have been directly arming the rebels, they were providing arms to partnered nations in Qatar, Turkey and other Arabian elements that were providing arms.

    Obviously, the discretion in whose weapons were being provided to who was low and from several of the reports coming back from US Muslims who joined in on the fighting, it was clear that the moderate rebels and Islamist extremists in either the Free Syrian Army, Abu Bakr's organization or Zawari's organziation at the foot soldier level, saw each other as allies fighting together against the same enemy.  When the US invested its energy in helping the moderate rebels more closely, they were able to find success but by having them fight the Islamic State and Al-Nursa they were forced into opening a two front battle with Bashar Assad's army pounding them from one side, and ISIS and Al-Qaeda hitting them from the other. Early air support, or at least wiping out Bashar Assad's airforce, could have significantly helped their standing, but there continues to need to be an honest assesment as to whether or not there are enough moderates at this point to pull together a military that is capable of defeating both the Syrian Army and Abu Bakr and Zawari's organization that will not then create problems for Israel, Lebanon, Turky and Iraq. Training these troops in Jordan, building a more professional army with the support of Saudi Arabia as proposed may be the best option, but I am somewhat skeptical that without adequate NATO personnel along their sides that they will drift from their mission and protentially merge their interests with ISIS and Al-Qaeda. How many of the soldiers that have received basic small arms training in Jordan and Turkish camps are now fighting with the Islamic State? Commissioning an independent inquiry into the matter is the only way to answer these questions.  This question needs to be researched and answered before we begin doubling down and working to train another Muslim army with modern war fighting capabilities. Al-Qaeda's Al-Nursa Brigade is already overrunning UN checkpoints along the Golan Heights and Hamas has waged attacks on Israeli beaches and the North side of the Gazian border in the past few months. While there is a certain amount of trust with Jordanian, Saudi and Emirate governments, there needs to be a realistic look at the behavior of the common foot soldier they produce and send into Iraq or Syria to fight.

    Little has been addressed in the President's policy as it relates to the security of Syria's size-able Christian Maronite population, which has seen its villages overrun by Al-Qaeda and nuns taken hostage. The fact that Al-Qaeda, thankfully at least treated the nuns with respect and care, does not undo the overall security concerns. The statist group think of Washington, has time and time again proposed the build up of large national armies as a cliché paradim of state building. These militaries, in the Sunni regions of Iraq, particularly, have fought horribly and enemy groups have easily been able to seize their weapons caches. Clearly, the larger problem is the flood of weapons into these regions and the flawed emphasis on creating capable centralized governments with traditional 70s era understandings of what makes a nation-state work. 

     With all do respect for General Hayden and as well intentioned as his recommendations were, I think that he was wrong about his approach of "figuring out the guys we like and provide them the tools to have a fighting chance.” Nation states still have influence today and are important to understanding the world, but I believe that they are decaying vesitages of the secular world order that will be nearly non-existent by 2016. (I don't mean to spill the beans but by Grandfather was a high-ranking free mason and I read ahead. Wisdom societies are the best!)  The future is all about networks, markets, religion and the aggregate production of decentralization facilitated by the increasing speed and proliferation of communication tools.  The restoration of the clerical establishment and the royal Davidian bloodlines are inevitable.  When the demos attempt to write laws that defy natural and divine law they fail, plain and simple.  Aristotle told us this at democracies onslaught, that democracy is an inherently corrupt form of government and so the brilliant English realized that you need to have well-bred monarchs, trained from birth in matters preparing them for their reign, with substantial untaxed sovereign monetarily valuable holdings, so that they would never have any reason to be corrupt, and every interest in governing responsibly, enforcing the laws, upholding traditions and representing the interests of his subjects and people.  Laissez-faire approaches will always win out because the aggregate result of people at liberty, will always be more innovative, adaptable, insightful, productive and successful and those under a strictly enforced chains of command.  The future is not about order, but choice. The Pentagon and District of Columbia are going to have a tough time accepting this reality, but the sooner they embrace it and adjust their policies to mesh with the invevitable, the sooner they will be able to affect outcomes that actually coincide with the interests of the American population.

    Civil Wars generaly end in one of two ways, one side fighting, winning and enacting violent reprisal killings or by a negotated agreement that ends the fighting. Had the United States done more to expedite the defeat of Bashar Assad, the Syrian rebels would have maintained momentum against that regime until they won. When the US cut a deal with the devil, by allowing him to get rid of his chemical weapons and use his superior airforce to use barrel bombs and other tactics in an effort to beat back the rebels from the Allawi controlled coast, it radicalized the resistance and caused their commanders to seek gains in Iraq as opposed to Syria.  Even with US airstrikes raging, ISIS and ISIL during the early morning of 9/30/2014 have managed to mount gains in northern Syria along the Turkish border and on Iraq's Syrian border where cache's of Sunni controlled Iraqi military assets surrendered.   

    The best outcome that can possibly be pursued at this point is not an extended 1 to 3 year chip-shot bombing campaign where the supposedly moderate Sunni rebel forces are increasingly build up and made into a rival professional army, but a negotiate peace that takes advantage of the established 14 Syrian Governates. Latakia and Tartus would remain under control the Assad family and his Allawi sect, Hama, as matter of strategic conveninece, may also remain under control of Bashar Assad, but would governed secularly and be home to Shi'ites and Christians. Al-Hasakah would be a Kurdish governate with a popularly elected president. Alleppo would be a secular Sunni governate. Al-Raqqa would a more religiously conservative governate where a more traditional practice of Sunni Islam would be practiced on condition that is at peace with its neighbors and does not try to interfere with governence of neighboring governates. The Syrian born remnants of Abu-Bakr organization would be expected to retreat, disarm and surrender to this governate where racism, anti-semetism and anti-american rhetoric calling for Jihad would not be tolerated. Deir Ez-Zor would be another moderate Sunni Governate. Idlib and Homes would both need to be moderate, tolerant and secularly mixed ethnic and sect governates, but be free from the oppressive taxations and rules of Bashar Assad. Damascus would become a secular Sunni governate, Rif Dimashq would be a moderate Sunni governate. Quneitra and Al-Suwayda would remain moderate and secular sovereign Druzian governates. Darra would be a secular and moderate Christian governate with Sunni Populations in the North and US military bases and a supporting Maronite Christian population based near the border of Israel. I'm calling for permanent US bases at this position because they are spaced away from Russian Naval installations on the coast and in the area where Al-Qaeda's Al-Nursa brigade recently overran and overwhelmed Filipino military men serving on a UN peace keeping mission.

    It would obviously be ideal if more moderate populations lived in that region, Druze and Maronite christian populations remaining from the old Principality of Antioch could build housing and towns in the areas of Lebanon and Syria that line the Israeli border. It cannot be executed in the draconian manner by which Ariel Shalom pursued it. In the midst of these negotiated cease-fires and occasional revocations, cash should be used to compensate the purchasing of homes and lands with new homes assigned, or adequate resources provided to pay for them. The degree of social displacement in Syria is so bad at this point, that a centralized entity taking the refugees and assigning them homes in regions with their religious and ethnic kin may be the only means of ending the Syrian Civil War.

    I am interested in the prospect of allowing for Prince Faisal to rule over the Sunni regions of Iraq and Syria in an effort to dislodge Abu Bakr, to align the regions interests with the Saudi Arabian government and its allies and engage in a project to send the Syrian elements present in Anbar back to Syria, to send the Chenchnyan and Algerian agitators back to their respective countries of origin, and begin the difficult process of working with the Sunni tribes, to incorporate them into the proposed regional Iraqi National Guard that would be at the regional governors command. This time, the Iraqi government would allow for former Ba'athist technocrats to be hired for jobs in the fields of their expertise.  By allowing for a more natural Sunni Supra state lead from Riyadh that is cooperative with the Arab League, the elements of politicized Islam engaged in terrorist tactics can be sidelined and brought to justice as the Arab and Sunni groups oppressed by Shi'te regimes can enjoy the justice of wealth and peace that loyalty to the order of Faisal and his collaboration with King Abdullah would provide. I contend that the Free Syrian Assembly is too fractured and invested in marxist theory to find even remedial success governing.  Capitalist realism and religious freedom is the only route to governing success. Anglo-American Empire's relationship with the Arabs, particularly Sunni Arabs, was injured tremendously after it turned over control of Syria to the French and the United Nations, so to turn over control to the Faisal line with the provision of a competent Privy Council instead, would perhaps be of substantially higher value to the peace and prosperity of the region and its people.  This requires competent actions to prevent acts of genocide and other alleged atrocities that Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi's organization has engaged in and that certain operatives under the flag of ISIL have carried out.  

     The best way for the outside word to assist these regions, is to use available resources that encourage a healthy economic ecosystem where the business of the populaces daily lives undo the need for either violence or grievance.  Cash needs to be made available to purchase residencies and build new ones, begin employing local workers to provide basic services.  Cash would also need to be made available to purchase homes, provide for relocation and build new homes. The future of humanitarian intervention has to involve an improved means of encouraging economic development and the formation of self-sustaining human stewarded ecosystems that balance regional self-sufficient capabilities with global integration. Formally, the country of Syria would be split into two countries, with Allawistan, comprised of Latakia, Tartus and Hama, and the rest composed of Syria. Al-Hasakah may leave Syria to be integrated into either the Kurdish components of Iraq or Turkey. This is a matter for arbitrated discourse between the government and Istanbul and Baghdad, and a decision for the populace, but at this point, Bashar Assad has no say in the matter. The numerous outside jihadist fighters that have joined the fight without their native states backing, would need to be returned to their home countries.

     It is important to note, that behind the scenes of this fighting lies a fundamental Russian interest that has blocked more rational policy: Russia has one of its few warm water naval ports along Syria's Mediterranean coast. The US has to consider realistically, what Russia is going to be willing to do to keep this port, and to protect a vital client for weapons, Bashar Assad. While previous Soviet era calculations would actually suggest a tougher stand would cause Russia to back down, a clear accommodation of their naval presence is the only means of preventing Russian retaliation and bringing them in line with effective policies. At some point, Bashar Assad may tire of being a pawn in Putin's game and simply accept the terms outlined in this paper. There is not a serious interest on the part of anyone expecting Russia to leave its naval installations regardless of what happens after the Syrian war.  Bashar Assad's Allawi sect already inhabit the finer lands along the Mediterranean coast.  I would think, they just want to keep their wealth and avoid being slaughtered by Abu Bakr's Attila like leadership over the barbarian Huns of ISIL in reprisal killings.

   All of this rests on the prospect of finding Sunni leadership that can competently manage the Sunni population in peaceful times and competently work with Bashar Assad's government and the international community to oversee the transitioning of leadership in the governates. I'm proposing Faisal, but aside from meeting with one of Faisal's grandson's am not an expert enough in his competencies and would refer to the instincts and experience of John Kerry. I am simply proposing him as a solution to righting a historical wrong and out of respect for his stature with the Sunnis of the region his leadership could become an alternative to either ISIL or Al-Qaeda. Both sides in the conflict, may make the calculation that they are winning, and not have much interest in actually coming to the negotiating table, instead encouraging the fight to continue, while Russian and US arms dealers rake in windfall profits. Additionally, there is real concern that Abu Bakr's organization will gain legitimacy in the eyes of Sunni Arabs outside of Iraq and Syria, further destabilizing those countries or leading to governmental collapse along lines similar to what has transpired in Libya. 

    One thing that is clear, is that the success of defensive measures against the threats posed by Islamist extremists have not been nearly as successful as forward policing and offensive measures to pursue and defeat them. The recent government offensive in Nigeria against Boko Haram is a case and point. While the Nigerian Military struggled to coordinate defensive responses to Boko Haram attacks to protect the populace, the coordinated offensive resulted in the wide scale surrender of Boko Haram. Yesterday, in North East Syria, we saw Kurds fleeing to the Turkish border open up a gun fight with ISIS, live on CNN, but because there were not US teams on the ground and effective integegration of communications technologies with the Kurdish fighters, airstrikes were delayed significantly. The USA has made preventing genocide a tenet of its military doctrine and in these types of battles, momentum is very important. With increased integration with the surviving victims of genocidal attempts conducted by Abu Bakr's terrorist organization, US airstrikes can help slow the momentum of ISIS's advance. Successful airstrikes, however, require the establishment of air bases and command facilities and logistical supply lines transporting supplies for distribution, close to the lines of military action. Hi-tech communications tools and training for aligned agents within the Pesh Merga, Iraqi Military or Sunni Tribes and Special Forces capable of holding the groups that the allies are arming and training accountable to keep their posts and carry out their missions, helping them in tough fights that may slow momentum and calling in the necessary air support to overwhelm enemies. Holding back ISIL and ISIS, retaking the Mosul Dam, keeping ISIL away from Irbil and Baghdad has required an exhaustive use of artillery and bullets, supplies that are going to need to be continually replenished. Building and buying them from the US is slow and expensive, the Austrians have factories producing M16 style assault rifles for the Australian military at a fraction of the cost and far closer proximity to the theater of war. Guns and ammo have to be built, paid for, moved and distributed to the appropriate parties. Logistics and Finance need to expedite these efforts.  There needs to be caution, however, in arming the Pesh Merga, not to arm the PKK, a designated Kurdish terrorist group with a history of terrorist actions in Turkey and there obviously needs to be substantially more done to be sure vulnerable Muslim populations around the world are not buying into the work of Abu Bakr's propaganda machine. The US has every intention of maintaining its NATO treaty agreements with Turkey, but there needs to be care that we do not fall for the tactics of ISIS, that similarly to the Anarchists responsible for triggering World War I, are trying to trigger NATO assaults from the areas between Aleppo, Syria and Antakya, Turkey to fulfill Quaranic prophecies of “Roman Landing at al-A'maq or Dabiq” and embolden their supporters to sustain massive casualties in the belief that end times had arrived.

  As the US has pulled back, encouraging the responsibility of regional governments and pushes for a democratic process to resolve disputes has lead to disappointment, chaos and disaster. High literacy rates, principled journalism and media along with a culture conducive to civil society and democracy is largely absent in the Middle East, making the leap to democracy problematic as the pre-requisites for its success are largely non-existent. Meritocracy and Capitalism, beneath generous and tough monarchs have served the only sensible order, but the role of faith and religion cannot be marginalized or underestimated, the moderate and true voices of Judaism, Christianity and Islam need to be turned up so that the region and world can transition to a prosperous peace.

  Scientifically speaking, free from politics, my review of these matters in the process of earning my Master of Science in Homeland Security is that the only effective stability achieved in Anbar province was during the Surge. My criticism is that as boots on the ground stabilized the situation that instead of focusing on building up strong civil institutions and providing basic utilities, investing in infrastructure and developing the marketplace, the combined Administrations focused on encouraging democracy and building up national security apparatuses that proved chaotic, oppressive and ultimately, counter-productive and ineffective. Had we prioritized civil institutions, basic utilities, infrastructure and the marketplace, democracy and security would have eventually followed but in a palatable form tolerable to the near entirety of the populace.

   When you look at Qatar, when you look at Dubai, when you look at Rihad, when you look at Cairo, you see thriving municipals of Sunni Civilization. The economy and sciences flourish and while there is no democracy, there are ample jobs, generous contracts and very reasonable degrees of security. The template for development in the Sunni regions of Iraq and Syria need to be based on these models. Before we get there, we need to bring the region to peace and that is not something that can be achieved simply by waging airstrikes and arming ragtag bands of hastily trained Arab or Kurdish mercenaries. The US military has no problem winning, but it requires adequate troops to hold, stabilize and competently managed transition periods. Japan and Germany were successful occupations because the allied militaries made it clear that they were never going to leave, never have and never will. Strength is a pre-requisite for peace and the US and Great Britain have shown by merit, that their forces presence are necessary component of any prosperous peace, in nearly every region of the world, with the few exceptions being within the francophone countries where the United Nations and UN peace keepers have sufficed and performed professionally.

    Imagine a father with two sons, one son who works and studies hard to receive an A, another son who never works and never studies who receives a C. The C student who has friend received an F. If the C student became jealous of the A student, should the father force his A student son to adopt the study habits of the C student? What if the C student encourages his friend the F student, to team up against the father and A student. This must be how God looks at the divide between the West and third world. The communists and Islamists look to their figurative fathers to force the populations and people who have been incredibly successful by the merit of their Faithful, Capitalistic, Representative and Scientific approaches to governance and enterprise, to adopt the habits and practices of C students. Marxists primary political motive and the underlying drive behind the creation of Marx's political philosophy was jealousy. The Marxists are the C students, and C is for Communism. The underlying philosophy of Islamist Jihadists is a xenophobic hatred and tyranny that goes directly against Mohammed's own treaty of Medina. The ideologies of militant Islamism is so far removed from the teaching of Mohammed and the other prophets he identified: Jesus, Isiah, Moses and Abraham, that their teachings need to be called by the name that best describes them: terrorists. Abu Bakr's organization is not Muslim, they have not submitted to God, they have defied HIM and received an F in Allah's theology class. It is not Allah, however, but “A LAW” that we must follow, the commandment shared by all of the major faiths of the world, in the Qua-ran and the Bible, “To do unto others as you would have done unto you.” Marxism and its proponents opposition to private property, the hailing to a totalitarian godless state, is equally dangerous, because I am certain that if you had a house and private property, you would want the state to protect it. Our goal therefore, is not Marxist communism, but to create and provide more private property so that everyone in the world can have some land and modern dwelling to call there own and regular inflows of money to manage responsibly. Law and Government focused on providing healthy conditions for Capitalism are the surest means to do this, as the fair provision of generous, administrative contracts and their enforcement becomes the basis for a morally appropriate and functional society.

    An aggressive bombing campaign with the appropriate coordinating efforts to arm and provide communications with the Kurd's Pesh Murga, Sunni Tribal leaders from the Sunni Awakening, the Jordanian military, the Turkish military and the Iraqi National Military can certainly break the momentum of Abu Bakr's terrorist organization, but the ability to retake territory and the achievement of Barack Obama's stated objective to degrade and destroy the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant, is most likely going to require him to break his stated commitment not to deploy ground troops. If President Barack Obama is serious about destroying and degrading the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant while preventing something worse from emerging in its defeat, I would estimate a need for around 75,000 professional allied troops in Syria, 50,000 in Anbar Province and strongly consider some type of military presence in Libya to bolster the beleaguered efforts of General Khalifa Haftar to restore order, protect the electoral process from Islamist intimidation and to bring the country back to some level of economic functionality and control by the elected parliament. The US, British and allied militaries can defeat these enemies quickly if freed up to do so, with one military commander recently bragging that the task could be accomplished in two weeks. I'm not one for overly rosy forecasts; after all one of Kaiser Wilhelm's General's made the same proclamation about proposed German offensive across modern day Belgium in World War I.  I do believe however, that adequately supplied and provisioned, competently commanded and with adequately large numbers, the allied Governments have proven themselves to be very effective in waging offensive advances as counter-terrorism operations. Our military personnel seem to prefer these types of operations.  Psychologically it can be easier for our soldiers and warriors to be on the attack, than it is to lay and wait in a barracks or on naval ship.  Setting a realistic expectation of a permanent peace keeping troop presence of around 15,000 in Syria, 20,000 in Iraq and perhaps 30,000 in Libya after military actions subside could help guide these troubled states into a permanent, prosperous and secure peace that will align themselves with the Arab League governments' desire for regional stability.  

   Civilian Control over our military; however, is vital to the health of our Democratic Republic and until President Obama changes his directives the DoD and military apparatus should focus on fine tuning coordination between the Pesh Merga and allied air assets to make it a goal to take control of Mosul and al-Hasaka, with ISIL and ISIS command and control capabilities in Fallujah and Raq'qa destroyed and degraded by mid-term elections. This is not to abandon other pockets of resistance to ISIL and coordinate airstrikes to support there operations.  Coordinating in collaborating with the United Nations and the Arab League, portions of the Sunni population displaced by Abu Bakr's terrorist organization can be integrated back into functioning and peaceful municipalities or trained to help retake portions of their homelands from Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi's control. The benefits of Barack Obama's plan is that it could help slow the momentum of a powerful terrorist organization, help to prevent genocide and create openings for moderate and sensible Sunni Muslims to dislodge Abu Bakr's terrorist organization. It could also strengthen our position to negotiate terms with Iran by November 20^th, 2014 and also limit the potential American targets in range of Iranian retaliation if a military strike on Iranian nuclear capabilities is launched. Military preperations to keep open the Straits of Hormuz are bolstered by our Navy's support for airstrikes against Abu Bakr's terrorist network. It also encourages an increasing degree of self-sufficiently and responsibility on the part of the Arab League.

   In Benjamin Netanyahu's address to the United Nations today, he brought focus to a larger point. He argued, that to defeat ISIS and allow Iran to go nuclear would be to win a battle and lose the war. I concur with his reasoning. Despite all the politics and high price tag, I agree that a nuclear armed government in Tehran poses a greater threat than the risks of instability and terrorist groups with only conventional capabilities. The chaos of this whole situation can be played into our favor. Iranian intelligence will see a flood of weapons, US operated airstrips along their border in Kurdish Iraq, a resolved display where 74% of US public supports airstrikes against ISIL and need to seriously reconsider its posture in negotiations. At any moment, our operations directed towards ISIL can be shifted towards a surprise attacks against the Iranian regime's nuclear facilities. US negotiators should not feel desperate, Khomeini and the Iranian regime should be forthright and ready to comply in full with the terms proposed by John Kerry and the State Department.