Strategic choices

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates - they have all joined in the military action. Getting these five Arab states involved in the air strikes on the Islamic State (IS) in Syria is a smart move by US President Barack Obama. Unlike his predecessor George W. Bush, at least Obama is bracing as best as he can for an accusation popular in the Arab world: that the United States is fighting a war against Islam - and against Muslims - in order to forge ahead with power and economic interests of its own.

Actually, including these five Sunni-ruled states sends a strong message: together, their regimes are making a stand more clearly than ever before against terrorism and the most brutal disrespect for human dignity, allegedly in the name of Islam. This is remarkable because the Gulf States have a reputation of having deliberately put up with or even supported the jihadist group's actions in the Syrian civil war for years in order to weaken Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and his most important ally, Shiite Iran.

Revising opinions

Have these states changed their mind? Apparently, they have - even if it took them a long time. The reason is obvious: the Arab States increasingly see the IS as a threat to their own fossilized systems of rule. Saudi Arabia in particular, which cultivates a deeply fundamentalist understanding of Islam side by side with its strategic partnership with the United States, sees itself challenged by jihadist groups like the IS. That's the reason it is embroiled in a vast political battle against the rival Muslim Brotherhood. The direction is clear: the regime in Saudi Arabia doesn't want to lose its leading role in the Arab-Islamic world to rival Sunni groups nor to its Shiite rival, Iran.

But by getting involved in the military action, the Arab regimes are also taking a major domestic risk: even if most citizens in the Arab states are likely to disagree with IS' methods, radical Islamist currents still enjoy the sympathy of some there. Should the airstrikes result in major casualties among the civilian population or if Syria's leader Assad, who was deliberately excluded from the action, ends up profiting from anti-terror strikes - a consequence countries declared they would work to avoid - anger could spread quickly in the Arab countries.

Neither potential result can be excluded from the realm of possibility: it will be difficult to wage a "clean" against the IS, in particular from the air. And the military armament of non-jihadist opposition groups in Syria hasn't yet advanced to the point where they could take on both the regime and the jihadists.

More conflicts likely

Overall, the long-term effects of this mission are difficult to assess. Can the IS and groups close to al Qaeda be conquered without ground troops from regular armed forces? It's hard to imagine. It's also hard to imagine that after the ongoing bloodshed that Iraq - and in particular Syria - could one day become functioning national states again, and places where different ethnicities share power and live together in peace.

For the time being, there's a lack of willingness on all sides. Instead, plans for a Kurdish state on Syrian, Iraqi and possibly even Turkish territory appear more realistic today than ever - and in future, they could provoke new and just as bloody conflicts. In the entire Middle East, the cards are currently being reshuffled. The outcome is wide open, only one thing is certain: Staying in power is at the very top of the agenda for every single one of the regimes and parties involved in the region.