SOMEHOW, the gruesome images of two decapitated American journalists has stirred up more outrage than the many video clips of Syrians gassed to death, apparently by the Assad regime. The prospect of a British aid worker being subjected to a similar fate at the hands of an Islamic State executioner has firmed up resolve to launch air attacks where Parliament had earlier voted down a bid by David Cameron to intervene in Syria.

Evidently, the very thought of beheading a human being revolts decent people: the mental picture of somebody being slaughtered like a sacrificial animal is terrifying. And yet the Saudis have been merrily chopping off heads for centuries: so far this year, they have beheaded 45 criminals in public. Nevertheless, the civilised world views such an act as barbaric and inhuman.

This is probably why the IS — as well as the Pakistani Taliban — have chosen this form of execution. Both American journalists were dressed in the orange suits that have come to be permanently identified with the infamous American concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay. The symbolism could not have been more obvious.

Through these murders, IS has probably achieved its goal of sucking Western forces back into the region. However, neither the American nor the British public has the stomach for yet another long-drawn campaign after years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The likelihood is for an increase in air strikes by US and British aircraft, together with ground troops from regional players like Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

However, the latter two may not join the ‘alliance of the willing’ as they have their own internal politics to deal with. In Turkey’s case, weakening the IS would strengthen Iraqi Kurds, and this would have an impact on their own Kurdish population. Saudi Arabia is a mostly Sunni state, and would not like to openly fight against a Sunni group like IS, specially as it has funded extremist militias in Syria.

Iran makes an intriguing case: its interests in eliminating the IS threat coincide with the West’s. And yet its controversial nuclear programme and the sanctions it has attracted makes open cooperation between Tehran and Washington problematical. However, there was certainly a degree of covert coordination as Shia militias, backed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, pushed IS forces out of the besieged Iraqi town of Amerli. Other troops involved in the fighting were Kurdish Peshmergas and the Iraqi army. But it was American air strikes that ultimately made success possible.

The recently concluded Nato summit in Wales had originally been convened to consider the Afghan situation following the withdrawal of coalition forces later this year. However, it came to be dominated by the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. And given the recent murders of the American journalists, most of the deliberations were about forging a coalition to fight the IS menace to the region and the West.

While Iran was not mentioned in the official communiqués, the ground reality is that its cooperation is going to be crucial in the coming battle. In fact, the crisis is an opportunity for Iran to emerge from its pariah status. But all the leaders of a possible coalition want to avoid giving the conflict a Shia-versus-Sunni colouring.

A possible concern will be the fighting qualities of such a coalition: both Saudi and Jordanian forces might be good at repressing their own people, but have never distinguished themselves in serious combat. The recent craven flight of Iraqi troops led by their officers from Mosul puts a big question mark against them.

Another issue that has been skirted around is the role the Syrian regime might play in this conflict. Shunned and condemned by much of the world for his bloody crackdown against the diverse groups attempting to overthrow him, Bashar al-Assad is now being seen as the lesser of the evils when compared to the IS.

In an aerial campaign against the self-declared Caliphate, Syrian airspace would be needed by coalition aircraft. Should Syrian air defences be taken out as a prelude is something that would need careful consideration. Clearly, it would be far better to secure Assad’s willing cooperation rather than weakening him further. And Iran might not accept any direct attacks on Syrian defences.

All these issues need to be thrashed out, but given the tensions between Washington, Tehran and Damascus, it is difficult to visualise a face-to-face meeting between the leaders. Thus, any cooperation that does take place will be at the level of covert support and intelligence-sharing.

But this time, there is very little division in Western popular opinion on the need to confront and defeat the IS such as the opposition that emerged at the time of the Iraq war in 2003. The images of beheaded American journalists seem to be playing as unifying a role as the collapsing Twin Towers did in 2001.

For his part, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-styled caliph, has no qualms about his jihad against the ‘crusaders’. As Martin Chulov wrote recently in the Guardian:

“Baghdadi does not fear the Arab world’s armies. He has tapped into the ruins of a body politic that has spectacularly failed to share power or respond to the will of the people. He knows … that to be realistically confronted, the US or another power will need to ally with local backers.

“He also knows that without an occupying army … it will be difficult to splinter the Sunni support base that now stands with him…”

Given this fanaticism and cold calculation, it seems the world is about to witness a long, hard battle.

Published in Dawn, September 8th, 2014