ISIS, Iran after American shifts.. Risks, potential escalation

International newspapers published today examined US policy regarding both ISIS and Iran.

ISIS After America: What Happens When the Last US Troops Withdraw?

In an analysis, Arab News argues that the gradual US withdrawal from Syria is unfolding alongside a broader restructuring of the ISIS file in the region, potentially heightening security risks despite the continuation of US airstrikes.

In recent weeks, the United States has carried out operations against ISIS and transferred more than 5,700 mercenary detainees from North and East Syria to Iraq. This has coincided with the release of thousands of women and children from al-Hol camp, raising concerns about a possible ISIS comeback through sleeper cells or the re-recruitment of family members, according to the report.

Iraq now faces a significant security and legal burden, even as US Central Command maintains that transferring the detainees is “necessary for regional security.” Analysts note, however, that keeping them in Syria would have posed even greater risks.

The newspaper adds that the most pressing danger is a rise in terrorist attacks inside Iraq and Syria, along with the possibility of infiltration into neighboring countries, particularly following the departure of large numbers of ISIS families from camps without clear oversight.

The conclusion, according to the analysis, is that the US move is less a full withdrawal and more a repositioning. Containing its consequences will depend on regional and international intelligence coordination to prevent ISIS from exploiting any security vacuum and gradually returning to violence.

Ambiguity in Trump’s Goals Toward Iran Raises War Risks

The British newspaper Financial Times contends in its analysis that US President Donald Trump’s threats of war against Iran lack a clearly defined objective, actionable strategy, and guaranteed resources, despite the enormous risks for Iran, the region, and the global economy. Trump’s stance appears contradictory: is he seeking a limited nuclear agreement, or a broader capitulation encompassing Iran’s missile program and regional influence?

The report notes that the management of the file has reportedly been left to envoys without sufficient technical expertise, while the Pentagon has warned of ammunition shortages and limited allied backing. It also highlights that the strongest advocate of any potential strike is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whereas other countries remain cautious.

The analysis stresses that although the Iranian regime has lost internal legitimacy due to repression and sanctions, this does not necessarily mean that US strikes would bring about regime change. Instead, they could trigger dangerous escalation, threatening maritime navigation and energy supplies, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz.

It concludes that diplomatic efforts in Geneva may represent the last opportunity to avert war, cautioning Trump against repeating the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan.

A-H

ANHA