U.S. President Barack Obama was criticized for his lack of strategy in dealing with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), but the seeming indecisiveness may be sensible in the current situation.

Republican Representative Mike Rogers, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, said Obama's "don't-do-stupid-stuff" policy is not effective and that the U.S. should go after the militant group. But Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times listed three factors that the U.S. should seriously consider first before making a major move against ISIS.

Like Us on Facebook

First, the U.S. should learn from the aftermath of the 9/11 experience. Then-President George W. Bush hurriedly launched a ground offensive in Iraq even though they did not have enough personnel to man the country and despite lack of understanding of how the Shiite-Sunni sects work.

U.S. troops wiped out Afghanistan's Sunni Taliban rule and Iraq's Sunni Baathist regime, both mortal enemies of Iran. This allowed Iran to extend its influence beyond its own borders.

When ISIS posted videos of two American journalists being beheaded, they just might have been provoking the U.S. to overreact, much like the Bush administration did after the 9/11 attack, Friedman said.

Second, international powers should understand the true origin of ISIS to defeat it. The Arab world is presently beset by three civil wars: the one between radical jihadists and moderate Sunni Muslims, the one between Saudi-backed Sunnis and Iran-backed Shiites, and the one between Sunni jihadists and the Alawites, Christians, Kurds, Turks, Yazidis and other minorities.

It is important to understand that a region peppered with several civil wars all at the same time has no center, there are only sides. Once the U.S. meddles in such a region, it does not become the center; rather, it becomes a side.

Baghdad's pro-Iranian Shiite regime and Damascus' pro-Iranian Alawite/Shiite regime overpowered the Sunnis in Iraq and Syria, and the latter formed ISIS to counter the more powerful sides.

For this reason, Obama wants Iraq to establish a united government made up of mainstream Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis before he launches a major military campaign. He wants the intervention to rely on pluralism and not just on Shiite rule.

However, the region will likely have a hard time adopting a power-sharing system since sectarian loyalties get in the way. Without a national unity government, any strike against ISIS will not convince the sides to compromise or work together.

Power struggle among sectarian groups makes the situation even more complicated. The U.S. is not just dealing with one enemy; it is dealing with several lethal civil wars that help reinforce ISIS ideals, Friedman explained.

Third, U.S. allies in the region cannot be considered its full allies. ISIS militants get their funds and recruits from the mosques, charity groups and Sunni tycoons of Saudi, Kuwait and Qatar.

Defeating ISIS would also mean defeating a key power against Iran, like what the U.S. did to the Taliban and Saddam. However, the Obama administration should also remember that it needs to dissolve Iran's nuclear program first before taking a step towards solving the ISIS problem.

Iran's nuclear ambitions make the situation trickier and murkier than it already is. Neglecting this issue could give rise to Iran's global power.

Obama has an awful lot of things to consider before he should take a major step in resolving the threat posed by ISIS. Friedman said the president has to do everything with utmost care if he wants lasting results from all U.S. efforts.

TagsBarack Obama, U.S., Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS, The New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman, Mike Rogers, House Intelligence Committee, George W. Bush