Few outside forces that are not directly involved in the conflict in Iraq have more at stake in the outcome of the battle over Mosul than Gulf Arab countries. In particular, the war of words that has erupted between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi over the Turkish role in Iraq touches on a number of their most central concerns. As the offensive to reclaim Mosul from the brutal rule of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant has finally begun, Turkey has unexpectedly insisted on playing a direct role in the campaign. Indeed, Ankara asserts that it has already contributed artillery to the fighting, although Iraqi leaders deny this. The sudden introduction of Turkish forces into the conflict, and Turkey’s increasingly assertive role in Iraq more generally, is undoubtedly viewed with a mix of reassurance and anxiety, and hence a degree of ambivalence, by the Gulf states. Ankara’s boldness regarding Mosul involves both positive and negative elements for the Gulf states’ interests, and presents them with a set of complex challenges and opportunities. But the primary effect of this disruptive sideshow to the effort to expel ISIL from Mosul will be to redouble the determination of Gulf states to play a significant role, albeit indirectly, in shaping the outcome and aftermath of the conflict.

Turkey’s intervention has been prompted by a number of vital concerns for Ankara. The most important of these is Turkish concern about the influence and behavior of Kurdish forces in the region, particularly as its decades-long conflict with the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) has flared in recent months. The PKK and its allies took advantage of the chaos in Syria, and the withdrawal of Syrian government forces from some Kurdish areas in the north, to establish two autonomous Kurdish zones along Turkey’s southern border. In September, Turkish forces intervened in northern Syria ostensibly to drive ISIL forces out of Jarablus. But their real intention was to prevent PKK-aligned Kurdish forces from linking two sizable strips of Kurdish-controlled territory along the Turkish border and creating a large and contiguous Kurdish enclave, controlled by the PKK, along Turkey’s underbelly.

The PKK has also emerged as one of the most effective fighting forces against ISIL, and has, in effect, morphed into a key U.S. ally against ISIL fighters, stoking grave concern in Turkey. PKK forces played the key role in several major assaults against ISIL in northern Syria, and participated in a number of campaigns against ISIL in Iraq as well. In order to counter what it perceives to be a growing PKK threat, since 2014 Turkey has maintained 600 to 800 troops inside Iraq in Bashiqa, which is near Mosul, and has been training other Kurdish and Arab militia groups. Iraq has denounced the Turkish presence in its territory and has become increasingly outspoken about its illegitimacy.

The Turkish demand for a direct military role in the Mosul operation is intended to prevent the PKK and its key allies from being strengthened by their involvement in the campaign. One of the challenges for Turkey will be to maintain, and perhaps even strengthen, close ties to the quasi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq. Turkey’s support for the KRG is, in part, designed to ensure that Kurdish national ambitions are played out in Iraq, and not in Turkey, and are led by Iraqi Kurdish parties rather than the PKK. But, like Turkey, the PKK has been active in northern Iraq, and the KRG has had to balance its close economic and political ties to Turkey with its ethnic and national sympathies with the PKK. Therefore, Turkey will seek to use its expanding role in Iraq to bolster ties with the KRG while keeping the PKK in check. The pitfall, of course, is that the KRG cannot be seen as effectively siding with Turkey against the PKK, meaning that if the situation is not handled deftly, Turkey’s expanding military presence in Iraq might eventually undermine its close relations with the KRG, thereby upsetting its delicately balanced policy toward Kurdish nationalism.

Turkey has also framed its role in Iraq as protecting the minority Turkoman population in the Bashiqa area, and defending Sunni sectarian interests more broadly. It is this goal that has made Turkey an important de facto ally for the Gulf states in their efforts to limit the spread of Iranian influence in the Arab world. Turkey’s manner of expressing its Sunni Muslim sectarian identity in the broader Middle East has often been at odds with some of the Gulf states, most notably Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Erdogan and his ruling party have been closely aligned with Muslim Brotherhood groups in the Arab world, a position shared only by Qatar for most of the past decade. But because Turkey’s influence has been limited, and Muslim Brotherhood parties have largely failed to secure power in post-dictatorship Arab republics, this issue is no longer a major source of disagreement between Ankara and Riyadh, although the UAE remains implacably opposed to all forms of Islamism. Moreover, when it has come to regional conflicts that are primarily defined in broadly sectarian terms, such as the wars in Syria and Iraq, Turkey and the Gulf states have been natural allies in support of Sunni Muslim forces (with the obvious exception of Salafist-jihadist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIL).

The Gulf states therefore appear to be quietly and cautiously supportive of Turkey’s expanded role in northern Iraq, since they view Turkey as an important counterweight to Iranian influence in Iraq specifically and the Middle East more broadly. The concern, however, is that intervention by the Turkish military could lead to an expanded role for pro-Iranian Shia Iraqi militias operating under the umbrella name of the Popular Mobilization Units. The campaign to liberate Mosul is currently being spearheaded by 30,000 Western-trained Iraqi government, Kurdish, and Sunni tribal forces. There has been a tacit understanding among the key players, including the Iraqi government and Iran, that PMU forces would not enter Sunni population centers during the Mosul campaign. Previously, they were successfully held back during the liberation of Falluja, following widespread concern that they might try to take vengeance against the Sunni Arab population in that city.

Should Turkish forces enter the fighting in and around Mosul in a significant way, because they are seen as representing Sunni sectarian interests and, in particular, acting as a counterweight to offset Iran’s power, this could provoke the PMU and its Iranian sponsors to increase involvement in the conflict. Should PMU forces be deployed to counter an expanded Turkish role, two major negative consequences could ensue. First, many of these groups have a long history of brutality and human rights abuses against Iraqi Sunni civilians, and those could be repeated on either a small or large scale. Even the fear of such abuses would have a very negative impact. The second, and closely related, concern is that the direct engagement in Sunni population centers by sectarian Shia militias could greatly strengthen the hand of ISIL and produce such anxiety among vulnerable populations that it could receive a sudden wave of support driven by existential fear.

Therefore, while the Gulf states will welcome the Turkish role as a counterweight to Iran, they will share the concerns that it could also strengthen local, and possibly even regional, support for ISIL, if its fighters cast themselves as the only effective defenders of vulnerable Sunnis from brutal sectarian enemies. However, like most Arabs and many others, the Gulf states are leery of the neo-Ottoman rhetoric that Erdogan and his allies are promoting to rationalize their engagement in Iraq and their regional posture. Turkey is viewed as an important ally in several core goals: defeating ISIL, overthrowing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and countering Iranian influence.

But, especially given its imperial history, there is a latent anxiety that Ankara could once again attempt to act as a hegemonic power in the Arab Middle East. Turkey may be seen as a key Sunni ally against Shia Iran, but it is also potentially a long-term non-Arab threat to Arab interests and even independence. Some of Erdogan’s recent rhetoric has raised the specter of not only Turkish historical resentment about the loss of its imperial possessions throughout the Middle East and grievances against the West, but also hints at considering redrawing the map to restore some of Turkey’s former territories. “We did not voluntarily accept the borders of our country,” Erdogan recently complained, adding that critics of Turkey’s role in Syria, Bosnia, and Iraq failed to understand that “these geographies are each part of our soul.” On October 21, Erdogan went even further, declaring that, “Mosul was ours. Look at the history.” Abadi has countered that if Turkish forces try to enter the fray in Mosul, what will await that will not be a “picnic.”

BBC reported that, in a nationalist fervor prompted by post-coup paranoia and chauvinism, “The Turkish media has been awash with maps showing Turkey’s widening horizons,” reflecting “irredentist cartography and rhetoric.” Erdogan has not specifically laid claim to any former Ottoman territories in Iraq or Syria, but this rhetoric inevitably produces anxieties in Arab lands formerly dominated by Ottoman rule. Moreover, for the Gulf states that value regional stability above most other policy considerations, such irredentist rhetoric is alarming. And while they greatly mistrust Abadi, the extreme arrogance of some of Erdogan’s comments aimed at the Iraqi prime minister, including telling him on October 11 that “you are not at my level” and demanding that he “know” his “place,” will ultimately not sit well with his fellow Arabs in the Gulf, who will inevitably wonder what “level” Erdogan accords them.

For all these reasons, tensions over Mosul are likely to increase the sense in the Gulf states that they need to find a way to ensure that they play a significant role in shaping the nature and outcome of the battle against ISIL. The rise of extremism among Sunnis and Shias alike is a major threat to the Gulf states. The prospect that the Mosul campaign could, in effect, strengthen the role and stature of sectarian Shia militias in Iraq and, simultaneously, play into the hands of ISIL, bolstering it politically even as military blows rain down on its forces, is deeply alarming. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said on October 17, “We oppose any kind of involvement by the Shia militias. If they go into Mosul … I would expect the negative reaction will be tremendous and if there are mass killings, it could end up being a bonanza for violent extremists, and recruitment for Daesh [ISIL]. It could add fuel to the sectarian fires raging in the region.” On October 13 Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu met with Jubeir and attended a Gulf Cooperation Council meeting focusing on Mosul. At a joint press conference following their meeting both men condemned the role of Shia militias in the conflict. Following the foreign ministers’ meeting, the GCC issued a statement warning that the PMU’s actions in the Mosul area “could trigger ethnic conflicts and jeopardize the operation’s success.”

While the Gulf states are alarmed at the real hegemony of Iran, they also worry about the potential hegemony of a neo-Ottoman Turkey. The only way to protect the Gulf state’s interests in Iraq is for these countries to play as strong of a strategic, albeit indirect, role in the liberation and post-conflict stabilization of Mosul as possible. To that end, the UAE recently pledged $50 million to reconstruction efforts for the city, and Kuwait also has a long-standing commitment. Their goals must focus on defeating ISIL, ensuring that Shia rule is not imposed on liberated Sunni areas, and maintaining Iraq’s independence and territorial integrity. It’s a tall order, but the liberation of Mosul is an opportunity for the Gulf states – even operating at a distance – to use their political, financial, and diplomatic clout to ensure that Washington, Baghdad, and Ankara work together with them to guarantee that liberated Sunni Arab territories do not fall under the control of Iran or proxies. If the Gulf states and their partners cannot safeguard the basic rights and security of Sunnis in Iraq, ISIL and other extremists will make the case over the long run that only they can.

With less than three weeks to go before the American presidential election, virtually all credible observers believe that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is now assured of victory. It’s therefore reasonable to begin to look at what a Clinton administration might mean for international relations, particularly from the point of view of the Gulf states.

Mrs Clinton was Barack Obama’s secretary of state during his first term and there is a strong overlap in their policy positions. But the two conceptualise international relations in strikingly different ways.

Mr Obama is strongly influenced by the 2003 Iraq war and its consequences. This fiasco, and its accompanying nation-building debacle in Afghanistan, left him and many of his closest confidants convinced that, in the Middle East in particular, armed intervention is invariably quixotic and liable to leave Washington bogged down in a quagmire.

Mrs Clinton, however, came of age diplomatically at the end of the Cold War. Although she is well aware that American public opinion strongly opposes any unnecessary military engagements in the Middle East, and shares that caution, she has a more “muscular” outlook than Mr Obama. Her frame of reference includes relatively successful American military campaigns such as the liberation of Kuwait and the intervention in Kosovo. She therefore believes that American firepower, properly applied and with limited goals, can positively influence international realities without resulting in endless and fruitless commitments.

While there certainly won’t be any return to the irrational militarism of the George W Bush administration, Mrs Clinton will probably update the policies of her husband and his predecessor, George HW Bush. This essentially entails a balance between recognising and utilising the potential influence of American power, while acknowledging its limitations.

This orientation explains why Mrs Clinton wanted the Obama administration to adopt a far more proactive approach in Syria, and has supported creating no-fly zones and much more extensive programmes for arming rebel groups. A very serious re-evaluation of Syria policy after her inauguration is therefore likely.

Perhaps the sharpest specific disagreement between them has been over Mr Obama’s reversal on his “redline” regarding the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. Mrs Clinton argued that once Washington has committed to such a red line, it must be enforced to avoid serious damage to American credibility. Mr Obama counters that taking military action to prove a willingness to do so is the “worst argument” for the use of force.

Another revealing difference between them is their diverting attitudes towards Russian president Vladimir Putin. Mr Obama has little regard for Mr Putin, unlike Donald Trump who seems to idolise the Kremlin bully. But the Obama administration has, nonetheless, done little to counter Russian adventurism in Ukraine and Syria.

Mrs Clinton, by contrast, seems to harbour a profound and personal distaste for Mr Putin and a much stronger sense of the challenge Russia is posing to the United States internationally. She is certainly not going to seek an open conflict with Russia. But she will want to put Mr Putin clearly on notice that he is dealing with a more resolute White House.

The best opportunity to do this in a meaningful way probably won’t be in Syria, but closer to home for Moscow, in Ukraine, Crimea or the Baltic states.

However, if such an initiative is deemed too provocative or dangerous, it’s possible that a confrontation over Syria could serve the same purpose. And a successful reassertion of a proactive American international role in Eastern Europe would, sooner or later, have a significant impact on the situation in Syria by diverting Russia’s attention, announcing that Washington’s patience with Russian adventurism is over, and altering everyone’s calculations.

Russia and its key allies, particularly Iran, seem well aware of the potential for a less risk-averse attitude from the next US administration.

The shockingly brutal campaign to overrun Aleppo by the Syrian regime, with strong support from Tehran and Moscow, while Mr Obama is still in the White House is an obvious example. So are the repeated attacks on American warships by Houthi rebels or their allies in Yemen, which primarily make sense from an Iranian point of view, particularly if Tehran seeks to establish itself as the address for negotiations that can actually end that troublesome conflict.

The Gulf states should be cautiously optimistic. This year, Mrs Clinton’s top foreign policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, called for a “more effective American strategy in the Middle East”, specifically by “raising the costs on Iran for its destabilising behaviour, and … raising the confidence of our Sunni partners that the United States is going to be there”.

The Arab Gulf states won’t get everything they want from her administration, but all signs point to a definite improvement from a Hillary Clinton White House.

The U.S. Congress’ swift and decisive override last week of President Barack Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) may have been momentarily euphoric for the bill’s supporters. The political and emotional power of “justice for the 9/11 families” was reflected in the strikingly lopsided vote tallies. The Senate managed only one vote to sustain the veto – outgoing minority leader Harry Reid, who, tellingly, is retiring this year – and the House of Representatives mustered a mere 77 votes supporting the White House. But the passage of the bill over the president’s objections is unlikely to be the end of this already convoluted story.

Buyers’ Remorse?

Following the override, many members of Congress seemed to experience instantaneous “buyers’ remorse,” as the White House put it, recognizing, as the CIA and Pentagon had warned, that JASTA poses dangers that far outweigh its benefits. Concerns over the possible consequences of the new law emerged immediately following the September 28 veto override, with legislators indicating that they intend to seek additional legislation to “fix” JASTA soon after the November 8 elections. Republican lawmakers, now worried about the implications of a bill they had strongly supported, lost no time in blaming the president.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called it a “good example” of the White House’s “failure to communicate early about the potential consequences” of the legislation. He acknowledged that JASTA may well have “unintended ramifications,” but that “it was certainly not something that was going to be fixed this week,” in other words during the veto override process. Another senior Republican senator, Bob Corker, complained that the White House had been unwilling to meet with lawmakers on this issue. He accused the White House of making “zero” efforts to convince lawmakers to sustain the veto. Corker claimed Congress was “only recently informed of the negative impact of this bill on our service members and on our diplomats.”

And, indeed, the White House does not appear to have made combatting JASTA the priority it might have been. For example, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi noted that the White House did not work with, or even contact, her in an effort to marshal sufficient votes to sustain the veto. The strongest statement by the White House on JASTA came relatively late in the process in the president’s veto message to the Senate on September 23. A few hours after the veto override vote, 28 senators sent a letter to key sponsors of JASTA outlining their concerns and emphasizing the need for new compromise legislation. But their apprehensions about the potential consequences of the law were exactly the same as those outlined by Obama in his veto message, and articulated by many others long before September 28.

The political maneuvers and calculations behind JASTA were more complex than both sides were prepared to acknowledge publicly. The White House seems to have genuinely opposed the measure, but does not seem to have utilized its full arsenal to persuade Congress to sustain Obama’s veto. Many members of Congress – both Republicans and Democrats – apparently voted for the act primarily for political reasons, while fully aware of the downsides and privately already preparing for a post-election legislative “fix.”

Several important dynamics seem to have been at work. First, timing was clearly an issue. The looming elections left many lawmakers reluctant to vote against JASTA, even if they realized that, in the long run, they would have to take further action to ensure that many of its key provisions do not remain law for long. The White House, too, had at least one eye on the elections, and was not unsympathetic to the fate of Democratic candidates. And JASTA, not coincidentally, was brought to a head by its sponsors and the congressional leadership in the immediate context of the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which ensured the strongest possible emotional atmosphere in favor of the bill.

Second, partisan rivalries were a factor, with Democrats and Republicans implicitly or explicitly blaming each other for legislation that many agree has significant potential downsides for the American national interest. Third, the familiar institutional tensions between the executive and legislative branches of government were reflected in the processes that led to the passage of JASTA. Fourth, the lame-duck Obama White House may have been reserving some of its limited remaining influence to defend other vulnerable foreign policy positions it regards as even more important than JASTA, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Change Agreement.

Corker and others have suggested that many members of Congress want to “see if some corrective measures can be put in another piece of legislation” to offset or attenuate the likely negative impact of JASTA as it now stands. He said House and Senate members want to “sit down” with the White House and “discuss routes that can take us to a better place,” and to ensure that Congress doesn’t “undermine other equities that the United States government and our people have.” House Speaker Paul Ryan has also expressed interest in further congressional action, especially to protect U.S. military officers from potential legal actions abroad resulting from JASTA.

JASTA Disaster?

JASTA allows U.S. citizens to sue foreign governments or officials for legal liability in the deaths of Americans killed in terrorist actions on U.S. soil. It is essentially a vehicle for allowing family members of the victims of the 9/11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia and its officials for alleged involvement in the attacks. Although no evidence of this has been uncovered in any of the official investigations, many Americans continue to suspect that the Saudi government, or some of its senior officials, might have been in some way complicit in the attacks.

JASTA abrogates the bedrock international legal convention of sovereign immunity, whereby governments and their officials cannot be sued in foreign countries. 9/11-related lawsuits against Saudi Arabia have been consistently dismissed by U.S. courts over the past 15 years because they violate other laws that enshrine the principle of sovereign immunity in U.S. law. JASTA is intended to allow such lawsuits to move forward in the U.S. legal system. But once the United States scraps the principle of sovereign immunity, other countries can, and probably would, follow suit. The United States could face a wave of potential lawsuits around the world over its military activities. An Iraqi group has already begun to try to initiate legal action, based on JASTA, against the U.S. government for the invasion and occupation of Iraq that began in 2003.

No other country has a comparable global presence or role, and therefore no other government would be potentially as compromised by a post-sovereign immunity international legal order as the United States. By nullifying sovereign immunity, JASTA would effectively grant other countries a free hand in determining who may face civil or criminal liability for what they deem to be unlawful. Moreover, the U.S. government, and even its officials, could be held responsible for the actions of private U.S. citizens, organizations, and businesses. These are undoubtedly some of the “unintended ramifications” that McConnell was referring to, as he ruefully added that “nobody really had focused on the potential downside in terms of our international relationships.”

What’s Next?

A number of European and other countries have expressed alarm about JASTA’s potential impact on international law and relations. The European Union sent a letter to the State Department warning that JASTA could have profoundly negative consequences for “bilateral relations between states as well as on the international order as a whole.” It added that “other States may seek to adopt similar legislation,” and that they might wish to take “reciprocal action,” implying that Americans might face a wide range of legal problems. The French, Russian, and Egyptian foreign ministries, among others, have expressed alarm about the potential impact on the international system. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also criticized the law, and said he expected it to be reversed in the near future.

Some countries, beginning with Saudi Arabia, might start to divest themselves of U.S. assets to protect them from being seized to pay damages imposed in the event of a plaintiff’s victory in a JASTA-related case. Saudi Arabia, which is outraged, is reportedly considering a range of defensive or retaliatory actions, including divesting from potentially vulnerable U.S. assets. Laying out some of these Saudi options, David Andelman has said that, while he hopes wisdom will prevail, Congress has indeed given Riyadh “every reason” to seek “political revenge.”

Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have joined Saudi Arabia in warning about the serious damage JASTA could inflict on the vital but already weakened U.S. partnership with the Gulf Arab states. In addition to Gulf Arab officials, regional opinion leaders and citizens have expressed indignation about the law. Some Arab commentators have suggested that JASTA could lead to a crisis in U.S.-Saudi relations, especially because it reinforces suspicions on both sides of the already-strained relationship. Additional damage to the frayed trust between the United States and its Gulf partners has been inflicted, with Saudis in particular again feeling betrayed by the United States.

But Saudi officials have recognized that the veto override need not be the end of the JASTA process and expressed hopes that “wisdom will prevail and that Congress will take the necessary steps to correct this legislation in order to avoid the serious unintended consequences that may ensue.” And some leading Saudi commentators have urged patience, and emphasized the value of the relationship with Washington and the dangers of an overreaction.

One potential solution being discussed in Congress is new legislation limiting JASTA cases to those directly involving the 9/11 attacks. But Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the key sponsors of JASTA, said he would not support such a compromise, which would make it difficult to secure. Another option is the establishment of an international tribunal of experts to determine potential legal liability, or otherwise adjudicate cases in a way that limits their diplomatic and political damage.

The “lame duck” session of Congress that will convene on November 15, after the elections, provides a useful opportunity for lawmakers to revisit JASTA. As The Wall Street Journal has noted, however, it won’t be easy, given that trial lawyers (a powerful and very well-organized political interest group) and some influential politicians, like Schumer, still seem determined to oppose any major revision of JASTA. Much of the U.S. public may continue to be on their side, as yet largely unaware of the potential consequences for U.S. foreign and military policy and the dangers to officials and military personnel.

Nonetheless, a consensus is emerging that something must be done to avert the worst consequences JASTA might inflict on U.S. defense and diplomacy. Plaintiffs’ attorneys know this is in the works, and are reportedly scrambling to file lawsuits against Saudi Arabia under JASTA provisions before additional legislation limits their options. Dramatic though it was, Congress’ first, and probably only, override of an Obama veto will almost certainly not be the last word in the JASTA saga.