In The Media
Lina Khatib
{
"authors": [
"Lina Khatib"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center",
"programAffiliation": "MEP",
"programs": [
"Middle East"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Gulf",
"Levant",
"Syria",
"Iraq",
"Middle East"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Security",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Degrading ISIS
If Obama’s strategy to defeat the Islamic State is to work, the Saudis and Iranians must cooperate.
By Lina Khatib
Published on Sep 11, 2014
Source: ABC Radio National’s Late Night Live
Speaking on ABC Radio National’s Late Night Live, Carnegie’s Lina Khatib discussed U.S. President Obama’s strategy speech to defeat the Islamic State. Khatib said that “the speech marked a significant turn in U.S. foreign policy towards the Syrian conflict, because this is the first time that we’ve seen declaration of intention on part of the United States to engage in this conflict militarily.” Khatib added that the speech was also very positive, because Obama stated that Arab countries “are also responsible for taking part in securing the region against Islamism with international cooperation.”
Khatib pointed out that Obama spoke about a broad coalition, leaving the door open for Iranian involvement further down the line. She clarified that back channel talks had been already taking place between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are driven by the shared concern over the Islamic State—an enemy to both countries. However, Khatib continued, “we don’t know what the nature of compromise or cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Iran might be. However...I think we can expect to see Iranian involvement—whether direct or indirect—sometime in the future.”
Khatib concluded that Obama’s campaign against the Islamic State would be a long-term campaign. “Had the United States intervened diplomatically very early on in the Syrian uprising ,” said Khatib, “we would not be where we are right now. However, speaking pragmatically, the speech and strategy that’s presented is certainly better than the alternative, which is doing nothing and allowing Syria to fall back into the hands of the Islamic State and the Assad regime and expand further in Iraq.”
This interview was originally broadcasted on ABC Radio National’s Late Night Live.
About the Author
Lina Khatib
Former Director, Middle East Center
Khatib was director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut. Previously, she was the co-founding head of the Program on Arab Reform and Democracy at Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.
- Syria's Last Best Hope: The Southern Front
- The Islamic State’s Strategy: Lasting and ExpandingPaper
Lina Khatib
Recent Work
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 Russia Eurasia Center
- Multiple Wars Are Ruining Central Asia’s Efforts to Diversify Its Trade RoutesCommentary
This year’s wars have made alternative routes to transit through Russia no less risky for Central Asian countries.
Galiya Ibragimova
- How to Ensure That Europe-Russia Talks Do Not FailCommentary
Reestablishing a dialogue with Moscow is not a goal in its own right. The goal is to guarantee the independence of Ukraine and the peace and security of Europe.
Arkady Moshes
- Belarus Is a Test Case for Ukraine’s New Role in the RegionCommentary
Ukraine’s increasingly confrontational posture on Belarus reflects Kyiv’s effort to shape the emerging regional order in Eastern Europe. Kyiv wants to limit European normalization with Minsk—and any future rapprochement with Russia.
Balázs Jarábik
- Loyal but Powerless: The Downgrading of Russia’s ElitePaper
The ruling elites in contemporary Russia are not a political class, but a community of managers who are not subject to competition or public accountability. The state is becoming an operating apparatus without any internal autonomy.
Alexandra Prokopenko
- What Does Pashinyan’s Parliamentary Victory Mean for Armenia’s Future?Commentary
Pashinyan’s pro-European party has been re-elected with a decisive victory. But the pro-Russian opposition could still slow Armenia’s progress toward peace with Azerbaijan and rapprochement with Europe.
Mikayel Zolyan
