Alwaght- With the advent of ISIS and development of its capabilities in re-drawing the old borders of the West Asian countries, especially after extending its activities to Iraq and approaching the borders of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, the member states of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (PGCC) began to fight back ISIS. However, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, more than other member states perceive ISIS as a dire threat. For this reason, most of the PGCC member states joined a US-backed coalition against ISIS. This approach, however, pursued two different objectives. First, they dismissed the allegation about giving support to ISIS and similar organizations in Syria and Iraq. Besides, together with the United States and the West, they marginalized the shared interests of the West and Iran in fighting ISIS, and introduced themselves as the leading anti-ISIS countries.
Nevertheless, the approach of PGCC member states to ISIS and similar organizations have been different. Most of the unofficial aids to ISIS were provided by citizens, and reportedly by some rulers and princes of the PGCC member states. The aids were transferred from Kuwait to ISIS due to it applicable financial rules. In fact, the discourse of Takfiri or Salafi movements, especially that of ISIS is rooted in PGCC member states rather than any other Arab or Islamic countries. For this reason, the largest contributions to this movements come from these countries.
In a survey on PGCC member states’ attitudes to ISIS, David Pollack looked into views of their citizens about ISIS and radical Takfiri movements. Results of the survey showed that 31% of Saudis, 34% of Kuwaitis, and 29% of the UAE citizens supported the Brotherhood discourse, while about 5 percent of their citizens supported the ISIS and Takfiri movements in Syria and Iraq. The survey results show that the discourse and practice of the Muslim Brotherhood in general, are more acceptable than those of Takfiri movements of the PGCC member states; however, the survey verifies that despite the pressure applied from the West and some PGCC member states, the ISIS and Takfiri movements still have some supporters in these countries.
As the ISIS became increasingly more powerful, some PGCC member states which supported terrorist movements aimed at overthrowing the Syrian government, realized an imminent danger caused by their miscalculations and lack of strategic analysis. This hazard and pressure from the West to cut off aids and weapon supply to terrorist movements in Syria and Iraq, gradually forced the PGCC member states to change their approach despite their internal disputes, and embark on cooperating with the US. This does not imply an ideological change in member states, but represents a tactic which reduces the pressure from the West, and averts the danger of ISIS and Takfiri movements from borders of Saudi Arabia and other PGCC member states.
As ISIS invaded Iraq, the approach of the PGCC to Takfiri movements in Syria and Iraq entered into a stage of confusion and lack of clarity. The confusion was stemmed from their support for supported almost all the Takfiri movements in Syria, while joining the anti-ISIS coalition in Iraq. However, this period passed quickly, especially with the death of King Abdullah. As a result of these changes, PGCC member states, especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar cooperated with Turkey, while isolating the Takfiri movements from the ISIS in Syria, formed the Jaish Al-Fatah and joined the US-led coalition. In practice, they gave support to some groups that Washington had attacked them earlier and considered as a threat to regional and international security.
Therefore, influenced by PGCC, the US priority to fight against ISIS turned to giving higher priority to arming anti-Assad opposition and then fighting against ISIS. Some analysts believe the main concession that Arab countries and Turkey obtained from Obama administration in return for their support for the changes, was that the US changed its priority of fighting against ISIS in Syria, and instead gave higher priority to fighting against Syrian government. Nevertheless, this cannot be easily perceived from Obama's unclear policy on the West Asia. However, one can see that the US fighters do not attack Ahrar Al-Sham and Al-Nusra Front any more, and it did not make a serious attempt to fight back ISIS when ISIS forces invaded the historical city of Tadmor, and did little to control or prevent the fall of the city.
In general, we may conclude that the approach of PGCC member states towards the ISIS is in a transitional status, from the lack of clarity to status which reflects the isolation of ISIS from other Takfiri movements, and trying to focus Takfiri movements on the fight against the Syrian army and its militias rather than fighting against the US or killing some Western people (what ISIS frequently commits). Although Saudi Arabia was at odds with Qatar for its support for Takfiri movements, as Saudi Arabia feared that their Saudi members might get back to Saudi Arabia, today both have turned from the competing approach to cooperation and synergy of their efforts against the Assad government. Therefore, the disputes between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, at least in the current situation, have been resolved. However, news about disputes between Qatar and the UAE is spreading more than ever. Some have it that during the Islamic Awakening, the dispute between Qatar and the UAE were tougher than other internal disputes within the PGCC. Therefore, conflict between Qatar and Saudi Arabia on the one hand and Qatar and the UAE on the other hand are expected.
