Amid the battles, a generation starves.
The government appears not to understand the nature of its enemy, warns Maria Norris.
The treatment of Silhan Özçelik shows how confused British policy towards the Middle East has become.
Above all, the Islamic republic wants stability – and to fight back against a group that despises Shia Muslims.
“We fled from terror and it found us again here. It feels like it is always behind us, stalking us.”
The Prime Minister has a plan for when the bombs drop. But what about after?
In 2013, the European Union declared Wahhabism the main source of global terrorism. But it's not just a “Middle East problem”; it is our problem, too.
A recent visit to Iraq has left me doubtful that the Prime Minister's plan can suceed, says Liam Byrne.
Military force may sometimes be necessary. But resorting to bombs and bullets comes at a high price to those caught up in conflicts abroad and, all too often, to the future security of people across the world.
If Britain has a declared interest in curtailing Islamic State and stabilising Syria, it is neither honourable nor viable to let others intervene on our behalf.
Islamic State believes it must eventually confront and then defeat the West. To get there, it seeks to polarise Muslim and non-Muslim communities alike.
We notice you have ad blocking software enabled. Support the New Statesman’s quality, independent journalism by contributing now — and this message will disappear for the next 30 days.
If we cannot support the site on advertising revenue, we will have to introduce a pay wall — meaning fewer readers will have access to our incisive analysis, comprehensive culture coverage and groundbreaking long reads.