WASHINGTON – The goal of defeating ISIS, the jihadi group setting up what it has described as a caliphate, could be undermined because the members of the loosely formed U.S.-led coalition are fighting for different reasons.
Informed sources say the Arab countries that have joined the U.S. in bombing selected ISIS targets in Syria are doing so for far different objectives than the Europeans who have committed their air power to bomb ISIS targets in Iraq.
The Sunni Arab countries of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Jordan who have committed air power to bombing selected sites in Syria ultimately want to weaken the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and replace him with a Sunni regime.
Assad is a Shia-Alawite closely tied with Shia Iran, which is in a proxy war with the Sunni Arab countries for influence in the Middle East region.
TRENDING: 'Art of the Deal': How Trump turns COVID issue into 'win-win'
But Western countries -- including the U.K., Denmark, Belgium and Australia -- have joined with the U.S. out of concern that the more than 4,000 foreign soldiers fighting on behalf of ISIS could return to their countries to wage jihad.
The Western allies believe videos and images ISIS has distributed of beheadings radicalize jihadists inside their borders. In addition, they have decided not to engage over Syria unless the U.N. Security Council mandates it.
Regional observers say the Arab initiative is less for efficiency than for dealing with the political realities that exist in Syria and Iraq, even though ISIS, in eliminating the political boundaries between the two countries, has made the fight a single battleground.
"This weakens the coalition, confuses desired outcomes and often limits operations to what will appease all members," according to a report of the open intelligence group Stratfor.
In Iraq, Europeans have joined the U.S. in attacking ISIS targets in an effort to back up existing ground operations led primarily by the Kurdish peshmerga, along with members of the Iraqi military who haven't cut and run at the first sign of an ISIS attack.
Such ground operations in Syria, however, don't exist. The U.S. has agreed to pay $500 million to train some 5,000 Free Syrian Army and other Syrian opposition groups in Saudi Arabia over the next year.
The prospect has led to concerns that the U.S. is once again seeking regime change in Syria under the guise of training fighters to confront ISIS in Syria.
As it is, FSA and other so-called moderate fighting groups have either fought alongside ISIS, pledged allegiance to it or at least signed a non-aggression pact with ISIS, as the FSA has done, saying Assad remains its main opponent.
While Obama intends to rely on the FSA and others with allegiances to various jihadist groups, including ISIS, WND recently reported he is ignoring the battle-tested Kurdish force already fighting ISIS in northern Syria.
The Saudis and the other Sunni Arab countries, still determined to topple Assad, have concluded that air attacks on ISIS positions in Syria will ease pressure on the Syrian opposition forces so they won't be in the position of fighting Damascus and ISIS at the same time.
The concern arises that the Arab countries could push Obama to decide to attack targets of the Assad regime, something which sources say the Obama administration will resist.
If the Arab countries were to push the initiative, however, they could pull out of the airstrike coalition, leaving the U.S. the only country bombing sites in Syria.
Already, Syria, Russia and Iran have warned that they see continued U.S. bombing over Syria is an act of aggression.
The Russians, for example, said continued bombing over Syria will "exacerbate tensions." They have called for the U.S. to seek approval of the U.N. Security Council and the Syrian government itself.
"Any such action can be carried out only in accordance with international law," a statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
Analysts note the U.S. doesn't want to look as though it is targeting Assad regime locations, and it needs to be concerned about collateral damage not only to allies on the ground but to civilians, some of whom side with ISIS.