Alliance with risks

Are countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt really trustworthy partners in the fight against the murderous "Islamic State" (IS)? No, they're not. Saudi Arabia is itself home to a brutal and thoroughly undemocratic regime based on Sharia law. Qatar is a massive supporter of the Muslim brotherhood in the region ­– including militant groups such as Hamas. Egypt has been rigorously fighting the brotherhood, but allows radical groups such as the Salafists free rein in order not to offend its biggest investor, Saudi Arabia.

In particular, the "Sunni axis" comprised of Gulf states and Turkey has, for a long time, not had any problem with the IS terrorists. These countries deliberately tolerated IS, and even indirectly supported it, as long as the terrorists remained a useful tool in the opposition to the Assad regime in Syria. Bashar al-Assad is a known ally of Shi'ite Iran, which has for many years been a bitter opponent of Sunni Saudi Arabia in the struggle for regional dominance.

Sunni states have long tolerated IS

Even when IS fanatics stormed the city of Mosul and began expanding their reign of terror over larger parts of Iraq, the Sunni states remained noticeably passive. It was obvious that the terrorists had aligned themselves with local Sunni groups against Baghdad's formerly Shi'ite-dominated government, which, just like the Syrian regime, was closely linked with the government in Iran. They didn't want to be too hasty in opposing this development. Toppling the hated Shi'ite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was apparently more important to the Sunni states than standing up to the IS terrorists.

At the same time, the Sunni states have no alternative but to ally themselves with the United States. Without US assistance, they cannot win the fight against IS. Even if IS is now more than adequately able to finance itself through contraband and forced taxes, it is still important to dry up the terrorists' private financial resources, especially in the Gulf region. The US needs to have access and flyover authorization in the region in order to be able to effectively attack the terrorists in Iraq and, in future, in Syria. There's also no alternative to a military deployment. The use of force is necessary in places where entire ethnic groups are being obliterated and innocent people beheaded with unmitigated malice in front of a running video camera.

What price to be paid?

The cooperation of the Arab states won't come for free, however. They will do everything in their power to ensure that neither Iran nor the regime in Syria is strengthened from the fight against IS. In the case of Syria, it's a valid concern: the regime there has been waging an inhumane war against the majority of its own people and should not be permitted to profit from the fight against terrorism. That's why, in the face of so much uncertainty, it's right that the US is pursuing direct military assistance for moderate opponents of the Syrian regime parallel to military missions against IS in Syria. It's not guaranteed that the plan will work. Assad could still emerge as a victor when all is said and done.

A further price is of a political nature: Arab heads of state are well aware of how much Washington is relying on them in the current conflict. Should any criticism regarding their human rights violations be forthcoming, they will likely fend it off with the greatest of confidence. During this war on terror, there will almost certainly not be any more "Arab Spring" – and by the same token, no much-needed renewal of the rigid regimes of the past.