MARCH 4, 2016 | ALANA GARELLEK
In a town filled with a seemingly endless number of acronyms, none are dreaded as much as ISIS and WMD—especially when put together. Recent allegations that ISIS is seeking nuclear material for a dirty bomb has exacerbated fears that ISIS could inspire a WMD attack outside of the Middle East, but some experts doubt that ISIS and its followers would ever have the technical expertise to pose a real WMD threat.
For a group that thrives off of terrorism, acquiring or developing a weapon of mass destruction—the ultimate psychological weapon—would be ideal. The intent is, therefore, undeniably there. And ISIS would not even need a high-yield WMD to accomplish its goals; rather, any indiscriminate weapon with chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) material would terrorize populations to ISIS’ satisfaction.
The U.S. military has already confirmed that ISIS used mustard gas against Kurdish forces, and there are numerous allegations of other attacks involving chemical agents in Syria and Iraq. ISIS has also reportedly stolen radiological material from hospitals in Iraq and Syria.
Although ISIS has proven its ability to acquire and use chemical weapons in Syria and Iraq, questions remain about its abilities to pursue other weapons of mass destruction and target outside of the Syria and Iraq. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, former commanding officer of the UK CBRN Regiment and NATO’s Rapid Reaction CBRN Battalion, believes Russia and France have the highest risks of being attacked by ISIS with a CBRN weapon—Russia because the Chechen jihadists, who claim Russia as their sworn enemy, are behind much of the ISIS WMD development and France because of its proximity to the Middle East and recent threats from radical Muslims within its borders.
That is not to say, however, that other countries do not have to worry. “I expect the U.S. and UK are already near the very top of the ISIL attack list,” de Bretton Gordon explained. As was the case throughout the Cold War, the large physical and psychological impact that WMD use would have on any given population outweighs the miniscule probability of one being used.
Unlike during the Cold War, we have not developed a psychological framework to prevent the ISIS WMD threat. During the Cold War, the fear that one’s own populations and cities could be wiped out by a nuclear weapon prevented the Soviet Union and the United States from using WMD against each other. However, ISIS, which has embedded itself within civilian populations, is likely to hedge its bets that another country would not retaliate using an indiscriminate weapon. Moreover, ISIS, a group that promotes suicide attacks as a means of accomplishing one’s life mission, does not likely fear a situation of mutually assured destruction. How can we deter ISIS WMD use if we cannot threaten anything of value as retaliation?
Without an appropriate model to do so, states are relying on international export controls, law enforcement, and other preventative measures to stop an attack before it happens. Since ISIS poses a global threat, it would be ideal for the existing international organizations that have been created to regulate the components of WMDs to monitor the situation, such as the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These organizations, however, are restricted by mandates that were created to address the WMD threat from countries, not non-state actors. ISIS has used weapons of mass destruction in Syria and Iraq, and yet international action has not been taken.
Experts are now looking at how to build a better framework to prevent ISIS—and other terrorist groups—from furthering CBRN pursuits. “Enhanced cooperation among these and other international organizations, which include sharing expertise, resources, and best practices, could mitigate the threat… but mechanisms for formal cooperation do not exist across the board,” highlighted Natasha Lander, former advisor to the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Countering WMD Policy. The existing international organizations are ultimately supporting bodies for member states, and therefore this enhanced cooperation would require the U.S., Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other major actors in the region to put aside their differences and unite against this common aggressor.
ISIS has already proven to be a greater threat than initially assessed. Even those that are completely skeptical about ISIS’ ability to use a WMD abroad, or to inspire such an attack, cannot risk being wrong.
Alana Garellek is an International Producer with The Cipher Brief.
No comments:
Post a Comment