How would YOU handle the ISIS terrorist organization if you were in the Oval Office?

[markpkessinger]

123. I've been thinking a bit about this question . . .

First, it strikes me that there are countries in the region with a far bigger stake in all of this, and which have the resources to confront the threat posed by ISIL (if they chose to do so), most prominent among them being Saudi Arabia and Iran. The U.S. by intervening directly, gives room to both of those countries to continue playing out their centuries-old sectarian struggle for geopolitical control of the region. It seems to me we have considerable leverage with both countries, if only our leaders had the cojones to use it. Imagine this: the Secretary of State says to the government of both countries, "Look, we are not going to solve this problem. You need to find a way to work together to meet a common threat." The Secretary offers to provide financial support and materiel as needed, but ONLY to a joint undertaking, not to either country individually. Then, to Saudi Arabia, the Secretary says: "Either agree to work with Iran in eradicating ISIL, or ALL U.S. military aid to Saudi Arabia stops TODAY." And to Iran, the Secretary says: "You want (and need) to have sanctions eased. Here's how you do it: work with Saudi Arabia to eradicate ISIL. Doing so will demonstrate to the U.S. and its allies that Iran wishes to be a responsible player on the world stage, and therefore deserves to have an easing of the sanctions against it."

But of course, the oil behemoths would never go for standing up to Saudi Arabia like that, so it's all a pipedream.