• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Michele Dunne",
    "Frederic Wehrey"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "MEP",
  "programs": [
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "United States",
    "Middle East",
    "North Africa",
    "Levant"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Three Risks of U.S. Cooperation With Arab Allies Against Islamic State

Washington needs to collaborate with its Arab allies to address the imminent threat from Islamic State. But it needs to do so while actively discouraging repression and pressing for policies in Arab states that meet the demands of the young generation that started the Arab Spring.

Link Copied
By Michele Dunne and Frederic Wehrey
Published on Nov 4, 2014

Source: Wall Street Journal

Secretary of State John Kerry‘s comments last week that “We don’t even have a five-year plan” to combat extremism in the Middle East and that ”we have got to get our act together” underscore the fact that while U.S. cooperation with Arab allies against Islamic State and other terrorist groups is essential, it is also problematic. Arab governments are engaged in a pitched battle to hold on to power. As they compete for influence, some are enacting repressive policies that fuel the extremism they purport to fight, particularly among the millions of unemployed, disenfranchised youth in their countries. And in the rush to build support from Arab partners, the U.S. is largely ignoring these policies.

Three risks in particular bear close attention (we write about this in more detail in a detail policy paper here):

1. An overly elastic definition of terrorism could fuel radicalism. Leaders in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and several other Gulf Arab states portray their political opponents, especially mainstream Islamist political movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood, as terrorists, a definition the United States does not accept. These governments have adopted, or are considering, harsh anti-terrorism laws that criminalize free expression, free association, and peaceful protest–measure that are used against secular and Islamist critics alike. Saudi Arabia, for example, has prosecuted citizens over tweets that complain about the royal family or economic hardship, while United Arab Emirates’ law contains harsh penalties for vague charges such as threatening “national unity” or “fundamental principles.” Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi recently decreed that any civilian attacking or inhibiting public facilities such as roads, transportation, or utilities would be tried before a military court. The resulting repression is likely to push more recruits into jihadists’ ranks, while diminishing the capacity of secular civil society groups to combat extremist ideas. The perception of U.S. support for such crackdowns could motivate extremist groups that were otherwise focused on local regimes to target U.S. personnel and facilities.

2. By focusing on winning the battle against ISIS, the U.S. will lose the war against extremism. America’s counter-terrorism focus with Arab states reduces its leverage, and bandwidth, to advance reforms that would address the root causes of radicalization. In Egypt, the United States is expediting advanced arms transfers such the Apache helicopter to help President al-Sisi’s regime deal with a worsening insurgency; meanwhile, it is failing to press Mr. Sisi to abandon his scorched-earth approach to all political opponents and critics. In Bahrain, the U.S. has welcomed the Sunni monarchy’s participation in airstrikes against ISIS while staying silent on its repression of the country’s Shiite majority–policies that could eventually endanger the sizable U.S. military presence there by encouraging more violent strains in the Shiite opposition. There are disturbing signs of Sunni extremism growing in Bahrain that the regime has been slow to address because of its focus on Shiite-led reformists.

3. Arab partners showcase “counter-ideology” programs but avoid reforms that would address the root causes of radicalization. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt have emphasized counter-ideology and de-radicalization programs that try to undermine Islamic State on theological grounds. But these initiatives are often used as cover for eschewing more substantive political, legal, and economic reforms that get at the issues that spark radicalization. The clerics delivering these messages are funded by Arab regimes and lack legitimacy in the eyes of at-risk audiences, particularly marginalized youth. More important, the programs focus on discrediting only those elements of radicals’ discourse that target Arab regimes while ignoring more intolerant, sectarian, and even anti-American tenets.

There is no doubt that Washington needs to collaborate with its Arab allies to address the imminent threat from Islamic State. But the U.S. needs to do so while actively discouraging repression and pressing for policies in Arab states—particularly freedoms of expression and association, as well as educational and job opportunities—that meet the demands of the young generation that started the Arab Spring with hope and today is resorting to measures that are engulfing the region in chaos.

This article was originally published in the Wall Street Journal.

About the Authors

Michele Dunne

Former Nonresident Scholar, Middle East Program

Michele Dunne was a nonresident scholar in Carnegie’s Middle East Program, where her research focuses on political and economic change in Arab countries, particularly Egypt, as well as U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Frederic Wehrey

Senior Fellow, Middle East Program

Frederic Wehrey is a senior fellow in the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where his research focuses on governance, conflict, and security in Libya, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf.

Authors

Michele Dunne
Former Nonresident Scholar, Middle East Program
Michele Dunne
Frederic Wehrey
Senior Fellow, Middle East Program
Frederic Wehrey
Political ReformSecurityForeign PolicyUnited StatesMiddle EastNorth AfricaLevant

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Does the EU Have a Germany Problem?

    Are Germany’s economic, industrial, and political struggles becoming a liability for the EU’s ability to rise to the geopolitical moment?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The Speech Ursula von der Leyen Can’t Deliver

    European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is about to give her annual address on the state of the EU. Here’s what she won’t—but should—say.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

  • Le Pen France Far Right
    Article
    How Europe’s 2027 Elections Could Test EU Governance

    Radical-right parties are expected to do well in upcoming elections in four of the EU's biggest member states. If successful, they could prevent the union from addressing key challenges ahead.

      Stefan Lehne

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europe Fails to Learn the Lessons from Ceuta

    The aftermath of the Ceuta crisis shows Europe has drawn the wrong lessons. Rather than doubling down on failed migration policies, the EU needs to address the underlying roots of such episodes.

      Richard Youngs

  • Carney Canada EU Trump
    Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is Canada Leading a Third Way?

    Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has twice inspired praise for standing up to U.S. President Donald Trump: at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos and on Canada-U.S. trade negotiations. Is Carney showing a third way better than the EU has in dealing with the Trump administration?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.