Responding to the argument that it would be better for the West to contain rather than trying to destroy Islamic State (IS), Eran Lerman makes the case for defeating the caliphate decisively and completely:
The Islamists’ claim to supremacy depends not on the quality of their religious interpretation but on the force of their actions. Whereas Shiite traditions sanctify losers in battle, Sunni [traditions] do not. Total defeat on the field of battle would thus lead to the collapse of the ideas for which IS stands.
As for Iran, the continued existence of IS and its horrors is a gift to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He uses it to lure Turkey, blame the Saudis, and justify the ravages inflicted on Sunnis in Iraq and Syria by Iran’s proxies. . . .
There are also [groups fighting IS] that deserve [Israel’s] support and sympathy, and the overt assistance of Western powers. These are the Kurds, and even more so the Yazidis, who are marking the second anniversary of the massacres perpetrated against them by [Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi’s butchers. . . .
In the case of IS, moral imperatives and realist calculations need not contradict each other. . . . Paraphrasing the Roman senator Cato the Elder [speaking of Carthage], it makes strategic and moral sense to say: Raqqa delenda est, i.e., the capital of IS needs to be taken and the organization destroyed.
More about: Iran, ISIS, Israeli Security, Middle East, Politics & Current Affairs, Strategy, U.S. Foreign policy