Efraim Inbar, som er direktør for den israelske tenketanken Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, har skrevet et strateginotat om Den islamske staten, der han argumenterer for at denne jihadistgruppa er strategisk gunstig for Israel og Vesten.
Inbar har vært medlem av strategiskomiteen i Israels plankommisjon og har undervist på ledende universiteter som John Hopkins, Harvard, MIT, Columbia, Oxford og Yale.
Tenketanken, som går under akronymet BESA, er knyttet til Bar Ilan universitetet og får støtte fra Israels regjering, NATOs Mediterranean Initiative, USAs ambassade i Israel og Carnegie Concil.
Både Inbar og BESA må derfor regnes som nært knyttet til Israels og USAs strategiske miljøer. Derfor bør man legge vekt på det når han skriver:
The West should seek the further weakening of Islamic State, but not its destruction. A weak but functioning IS can undermine the appeal of the caliphate among radical Muslims; keep bad actors focused on one another rather than on Western targets; and hamper Iran’s quest for regional hegemony.
US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter recently gathered defense ministers from allied nations to plan what officials hope will be the decisive stage in the campaign to eradicate the Islamic State (IS) organization. This is a strategic mistake.
Inbar mener nemlig at IS tjener viktige strategiske formål:
The continuing existence of IS serves a strategic purpose. Why help the brutal Assad regime win the Syrian civil war? Many radical Islamists in the opposition forces, i.e., Al Nusra and its offshoots, might find other arenas in which to operate closer to Paris and Berlin. Is it in the West’s interests to strengthen the Russian grip on Syria and bolster its influence in the Middle East? Is enhancing Iranian control of Iraq congruent with American objectives in that country? Only the strategic folly that currently prevails in Washington can consider it a positive to enhance the power of the Moscow-Tehran-Damascus axis by cooperating with Russia against IS.
Furthermore, Hizballah – a radical Shiite anti-Western organization subservient to Iran – is being seriously taxed by the fight against IS, a state of affairs that suits Western interests. A Hizballah no longer involved in the Syrian civil war might engage once again in the taking of western hostages and other terrorist acts in Europe.
The Western distaste for IS brutality and immorality should not obfuscate strategic clarity. IS are truly bad guys, but few of their opponents are much better. Allowing bad guys to kill bad guys sounds very cynical, but it is useful and even moral to do so if it keeps the bad guys busy and less able to harm the good guys. The Hobbesian reality of the Middle East does not always present a neat moral choice.
Inbar mener også at IS vil være et viktig redskap mot Iran, noe han mener at USAs regjering ikke har skjønt:
The American administration does not appear capable of recognizing the fact that IS can be a useful tool in undermining Tehran’s ambitious plan for domination of the Middle East.
Det er mulig at denne kritikken er riktig når det gjelder Barack Obama, men at CIA og Hillary Clinton ikke skal ha skjønt viktigheten av å bevare Den islamske staten for sine strategiske formål, står ikke til troende.