Strikes against Khorasan Group complicate the Syrian Situation
Amidst an American-led bombing campaign against allies of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), US airstrikes have reportedly struck the Syrian al-Qaeda affiliate known as the Khorasan Group, killing its leader Muhsin al-Fadhli. The Pentagon’s decision to engage Khorasan while concurrently targeting ISIL has raised questions regarding US authority to eliminate terrorist threats and what implications that would have on the political and military situation in Syria.
Justification for Involvement in Syria
On September 23, President Obama announced the commencement of the bombing campaign of ISIL targets within Syria. However, he only briefly mentioned the Khorasan Group, noting, “We also took strikes to disrupt plotting against the United States and our allies by seasoned al Qaeda operatives in Syria who are known as the Khorasan Group.” Similarly, in a letter from Samantha Power informing the United Nations of America’s intention to attack ISIL, Khorasan was mentioned only in passing. This campaign, Power wrote, served to “address terrorist threats that they pose to the United States and its partners and allies.”
But what exactly is the Khorasan group, and why does their presence warrant US military action? “Khorasan” refers to an ancient Iranian empire, and while this entity dissolved over a millennium ago, jihadists continue to use it in reference to the area near the Iran-Afghanistan border. In keeping with this namesake, members of the Khorasan group are largely foreign fighters from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran working alongside Syria’s al-Qaeda affiliate, Jahbat al-Nusra. But while al-Nusra has concentrated its attacks against President Bashar al-Assad, US officials consider Khorasan a direct threat to the West. Joint Chiefs Director of Operations William Mayville said, “The Khorasan group is clearly not focused on either the Assad regime or the Syrian people.” He continued, “They are establishing roots in Syria in order to advance attacks against the west and the homeland.”
The actual threat Khorasan poses to US national security remains uncertain. According to outbound Attorney General Eric Holder, the group’s bomb-making and recruitment activities prompted the Department of Homeland Security in July to increase security measures on some US-bound flights. However, there is a concern among policy makers regarding how to classify Khorasan. Several officials classified Khorasan as an “imminent threat” to American security, while others have expressed confusion regarding the decision to target a group not even mentioned in the Director of National Intelligence’s 2014 Worldwide Threat Assessment. Already, conspiracy theories have abounded, with Fox News commentator Andy McCarthy accusing the Obama administration of fabricating the organization as an excuse to increase involvement in Syria.
Such raises a difficult question: What authorization does the United States have to open a new front in the “War on Terror”? The White House has cited the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) as well as the 2002 authorization for combat against Saddam Hussein as justification for its action in Syria. This rationale has been perceived as shaky and potentially unethical, especially for a president who in 2013 characterized the AUMF as obsolete and in need of repeal.
Coincidentally, American diplomats are scouring over international law to validate America’s use of force in Syria. For example, Washington has pointed to Article 51 of the UN Charter, which protects, "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." While Article 51 strengthens to U.S. cause, it is important to note that either ISIL or Khorasan directly struck the United States. Despite this fact, the U.S. relies heavily on two reasons to legitimize its action: first, the U.S. has cooperated with forces from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar, among other states, which are directly threatened by Syrian jihadists and therefore require protection. Secondly, the Khorasan group posed enough of a threat to American interests to justify a preemptive strike.
An Evolving Crisis
American strikes in Syria have additionally prompted further convolution of the existing civil conflict, where numerous rebel groups have warred against the forces of President Bashar al-Assad, as well as amongst themselves, for several years. At least five distinct factions can be identified in the Syrian fight: Pro-Assad government forces, the western-backed Free Syrian Army, Jahbat al-Nusra, with which the Khorasan Group works closely, the Islamic Front, and ISIL. While both al-Nusra and ISIL promote strict Islamic Fundamentalism in the region, they have on many occasions engaged in vicious battles for control of strategic Syrian positions.
Presenting further complications for the United States is the fact that Bashar al-Assad, an embattled dictator against whom President Obama contemplated launching missiles last Fall, benefits directly from military action taken against al-Nusra or ISIL. According to an al-Nusra source, al-Assad has used American military action as an opportunity to resume an offensive against rebel forces, including intensifying bombardment of Aleppo.
Coincidentally, members of the western-supported, Free Syrian army have expressed concerns about civilian casualties caused by the air raids and the strategic advantage FSA could offer al-Assad. According to one FSA-affiliated fighter, “People say the coalition is with Bashar. This puts us - the moderate groups - in a difficult position vis a vis the Syrian people.”
The US government has maintained its prior commitment to al-Assad’s eventual ousting from power and refuses to cooperate militarily with the Syrian strongman. “We did not coordinate our actions with the Syrian government,” State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said. “We did not provide advance notification to the Syrians at a military level, or give any indication of our timing on specific targets.”
Ultimately, the effectiveness and long-term implications of recent US involvement in Syria remain in doubt. Recent reports from the Syrian town of Kobani show continued ISIL gains despite intense bombardment, and Kurdish leaders have acknowledged that airstrikes are unable to slow massive ISIL offensives. Moreover, US targeting of al-Nusra and Liwa al-Haq, a group affiliated with the Islamic Front, has hampered efforts on the ground to stem ISIL advances and could actually benefit its forces as they continue to gain territory within Syria.
President Obama has acknowledged the difficulty of American involvement in Syria and the potential for further action to exacerbate the crisis. "I recognize the contradiction," Obama said in reference to striking both Khorasan and ISIL. "Right now, we've got a campaign plan that has a strong chance for success in Iraq. Syria is a more challenging situation."