Can Isis be stopped? Options for the West

A key challenge in cutting off Isis funding is doing so without causing greater harm to those already living under the group’s repressive rule.

Why does Britain refuse to pay ransoms to terrorists holding UK citizens?

Successive British governments have sustained the policy of refusing to pay ransoms in the belief that it merely aids terrorist organisations in pursuing their brutal exploits. This does not mean that the government refuses to negotiate with any organisation that has kidnapped a British national. Negotiations through middlemen have frequently been held to try to gauge the location of a hostage and to see if there is any way to gain his or her release without giving in to demands for ransom or some other condition.

Britain has steadfastly refused to follow the example of other European countries, notably France, which have used front men or companies or willing donors to put up the cash for the release of hostages, allowing the governments involved to distance themselves from the ransom.

The former foreign secretary William Hague said in January that the payment of ransoms enabled terrorists to increase recruitment, strengthen their ability to organise and carry out terrorist attacks, and provided an incentive for future kidnaps.

What are the nationalities of other hostages?

Isis militants are believed to be holding hostage more than 20 foreign journalists and aid workers, including American, Italian, Japanese and Danish citizens, some of whom have been missing for two years. The disappearance of many of the hostages has been kept secret by the media at the request of governments, aid agencies and employers in an effort to help negotiations for their release.

Four French hostages and two Spaniards were released this spring after the payment of ransoms. German and Italian hostages have also been released.

In the past few months four more foreigners have disappeared. Two Italian activists, Vanessa Marzullo, 21, and Greta Ramelli, 20, were kidnapped at the start of August after venturing into Syria in an effort to deliver aid. A Japanese citizen, Haruna Yukawa, was captured near Aleppo. An unnamed Danish photographer was also reported missing.

What are President Obama’s military options for Isis in Syria?

The Pentagon is drawing up at least four options, two of which may be unpalatable for Mr Obama because they would involve the insertion of special operations troops.

They are:

· Limited airstrikes only, using armed Predator drones and FA18/F16/F15E ground-attack aircraft to target Isis leaders.

· A sustained air campaign, using the full panoply of US fighter and bomber aircraft to target Isis units and camps.

· Cross-border raids involving special operations forces to hit Isis logistic lines of communication between Syria and Iraq.

· A larger-scale operation involving airstrikes and a substantial ground force to destroy rather than disrupt Isis.

Mr Obama has made clear that he is opposed to sending ground troops to either Iraq or Syria to tackle Isis. Pentagon experts advise that if the US is to achieve any lasting success against Isis, rather than just offering a gesture strike strategy, ground troops in some form will be required, probably in both countries.

Can we take military action in Syria?

It is possible to take military action in Syria without the consent of President Assad but US, British and other coalition warplanes would run the risk of being targeted by Syria’s highly capable air-defence systems. There could, however, be a way of reducing the risk if backroom agreements could be struck to stop President Assad targeting any US-led aircraft provided that they hit only Isis targets and did not threaten regime positions.

The United States would be able to conduct such an operation relatively easily. It would not be so straightforward for Britain, and any combat mission into Syria would probably have to be endorsed by parliament.

Where do political parties stand on airstrikes on Iraq?

There is a public reticence from all three British party leaders to back airstrikes publicly. Yet they do. The reason for the caution is a legacy of the botched attempt to secure parliament’s backing for airstrikes against President Assad’s regime in Syria last year.

David Cameron has already said that Britain would look at using airstrikes if necessary. Nick Clegg made a supportive comment on this in cabinet yesterday, and would not stand in the way, with senior Lib Dems believing this is a matter of national security.

In some ways, Ed Miliband’s language is more hawkish than many would expect. His spokesman says the Labour party has supported airstrikes in the past “and we never rule anything out”.

And the public?

According to the most recent YouGov poll, taken at the end of last week, there is far greater support for action in Iraq this year than in Syria a year ago. Some 56 per cent of people support US airstrikes against Isis — the status quo — while 18 per cent are opposed. Nearly half, 43 per cent, would support Britain joining in the airstrikes, while 33 per cent would be opposed.

However, there is a big gender divide: men are significantly more likely to support action than women, at 58 per cent versus 28 per cent. A significant minority would even support extending these strikes into Syria — 45 per cent would back US airstrikes in Syria, but support for British airstrikes in Syria was evenly split — 37 per cent in favour and 37 per cent again.

How do we encourage Iraq to be more inclusive of the Sunnis?

It is doubtful that this is something over which the West can have much influence. The US made clear back in June that the divisive sectarian rule of Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, had to end if the Baghdad government was to receive any help in fighting a Sunni insurgency. It took the intervention of Iran and Iraq’s top Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, to persuade Iraq’s Shia leaders to drop their support for him.

His successor, Haider al-Abadi, may be a less abrasive figure but belongs to the same party and the same tradition of Shia partisanship as Mr al-Maliki.

Why are we arming the Kurds but not the Free Syrian Army?

The Kurds rival Israelis as the most pro-western people in the Middle East. They owe their autonomous region to western intervention at the end of the 1991 Gulf War and have remained loyal allies ever since.

Perhaps most importantly are the western economic interests there. President Obama said that arming the Kurds was necessary to defend thousands of Americans living there. They are mostly the employees of western oil and gas companies there to tap a geopolitically appealing energy source unthreatened by Russian belligerence, hostile rulers or civil war — as long as Isis are kept out.

What is Iran’s role?

From 2003, Iran’s policies towards Iraq were driven by the sole aim of countering US influence and extending its own. That has changed with the threat posed by Isis. Iran and the US now find themselves on the same side of a battle against the Sunni jihadists.

The shock of Isis’s sweep through northern Iraq prompted Tehran to withdraw support for its ally, Mr al-Maliki. Iran also turned a blind eye when Washington launched airstrikes in Iraq. Last week Iran sent senior officials to Saudi Arabia, its regional arch enemy, to discuss the common threat from Isis.

Iran is also deeply involved militarily in Iraq, from the military advisers spotted with Iraqi forces who retook Amerli last week, to the Revolutionary Guard commanders who regularly visit Iraq to maintain its continuing backing for Shia militias.