Obama the hawk threatens airstrikes in Syria

‘No safe haven’: Obama declares airstrikes on Islamic State ‘wherever it exists’

RT

11 September, 2014

President Barack Obama on Wednesday outlined his plan to authorize broader US military involvement for hunting down the fighters of the notorious Islamic State jihadist group in Iraq, Syria and “wherever they exist.”

In a public address to the American people, President Obama announced that the US will "conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists."

“I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are," Obama stated. "That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.”

The president’s strategy in Syria will also be to support opposition forces, and he again called on Congress to give the US government "additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters."

"In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its people; a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all, “ Obama said.

To ensure that the Syrian opposition fighters are trained and equipped well enough to hold the ground liberated from the Islamic State terrorists, at least $500 million in a Department of Defense program are stipulated in a $5 billion Counterterrorism Partnership Fund request, according to the White House.

In the meantime, President Obama’s strategy in Iraq will be to support the Iraqi government 's fight against the Islamic State (IS), as Iraqis will be the ones to ultimately defeat the group in their country, he said. “Working with the Iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions so that we’re hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense,” he said.

Obama also announced he is sending another "475 service members to Iraq to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment. “

“These service members will join the several hundred American service members sent to Iraq in June to assess how best to support Iraqi Security,” he added. The plan, however, still does not involve “American combat troops fighting on foreign soil,” the president said.

Instead, the military campaign will be boosted and waged “through a steady, relentless effort to take out [the Islamic State] wherever they exist using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground.”

The US President emphasized that he will not hesitate to take direct military action against terrorists in Syria and Iraq to "degrade ISIL’s leadership, logistically and operational capability, and deny it sanctuary and resources to plan, prepare and execute attacks.”

Following the Islamic State’s rapid advances and propagandist threats to attack the US and assassinate American citizens, Obama has pledged to hunt down, degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group.

Before his address, Obama authorized the Secretary of State, under the Foreign Assistance Act, to draw up to $25 million dollars-worth of Department of Defense services and training.

That aid will be used to provide military assistance to the Government of Iraq, including the Kurdistan Regional Government, and to help in their efforts to fight the Islamic State (IS) militant group, according to a White House statement.

In the meantime, lawmakers postponed a vote scheduled Thursday in order to consider a request from Obama for a short-term spending measure to authorize the US military to train and equip foreign troops to help battle the Islamic State, a signal of growing support for the offensive by House Republicans.

If the authority is granted, it is unclear whether more American military personnel would be sent into Iraq or even deployed in Syria to train foreign fighters. “It’s clear to me that we need to train and equip Syrian rebels and other groups in the Middle East that need some help,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) according to Washington Post. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she would support the move only if rebel fighters were trained “out of country” and not in Syria

The decision to order strikes against the Islamic State puts the US in a complex position by seeming to back the efforts of Syrian President Bashar Assad, who has been fighting jihadist rebels for three years in a civil war hijacked by the radicals. Syria was ready to cooperate and help coordinate attacks, but the US said it is not planning to seek Assad's approval for the strikes on terrorists.

READ MORE: West may use ISIS as pretext to bomb Syrian govt forces - Russia's FM

The US Air Force has already carried out over 150 airstrikes on Islamic States positions in Iraq, while some US politicians insisted airstrikes in Syria are also needed.

In a phone call with King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia made by Obama, both leaders shared their concerns over the threat posed by the Islamic State and agreed that a stronger Syrian opposition is essential to confronting extremists as well as the Assad regime, which has “lost all legitimacy,” according to a White House read out of the call.

US Secretary of State John Kerry was in the city of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, earlier this week, meeting with officials from Gulf Arab states to advance efforts to build a regional and international coalition to counter Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. He also held talks with representatives of Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Turkey.

However, reports say it is uncertain what support, materially or otherwise, Obama has either from the Europeans or Middle Eastern allies. Germany and the UK have both already pledged military support to the Kurdish forces deterring IS in Iraq.

President Obama told Congressional leaders on Tuesday that he had enough authority to take action against the militant group Islamic State, and does not need their formal approval.

The principal author of the 1973 Wars Powers Resolution, however, told the Institute for Public Accuracy, the President doesn’t have the authority.

“If the president orders acts of war in the absence of congressional approval, he risks impeachment by the House of Representatives for usurping a power the Constitution reserves exclusively to the Congress. If Obama wishes lawfully to order airstrikes in the territory of Iraq or Syria, he must first secure a resolution of approval from Congress,” said Paul Findley, a former Illinois Congressman.

Obama's Broad Coalition Cracks - UK, Germany Won't Support Airstrikes In Syria

Zero Hedge,

11 September, 2014

Well that didn't take long. After espousing his strategy last night of leading a broad coalition against ISIS, it appears President Obama's "allies" are backing away from the plan. 

As The WSJ reports, Germany and the U.K. on Thursday ruled out carrying out air strikes on Islamic State militants in Syria. It appears the Europeans, realizing the ire that these actions will likely cause to Putin, are stepping back - "We haven't been asked, nor will we do it," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters and his U.K. counterpart Philip Hammond explicitly ruled out air strikes in Syria, after the U.K. parliament struck down such a move last year. So that leaves the French?

As The WSJ reports,

Germany and the U.K. on Thursday ruled out carrying out air strikes on Islamic State militants in Syria, a day after President Barack Obama authorized the start of U.S. air strikes there.

"We haven't been asked, nor will we do it," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters when asked about German participation in air strikes against the Islamic State, known as ISIL or ISIS, in light of Mr. Obama's speech.

"We need to be honest with ourselves in the current situation, we don't yet have a final, blanket strategy which guarantees that we'll be successful against ISIS and similar groups," the German minister said in Berlin.

His U.K. counterpart Philip Hammond explicitly ruled out air strikes in Syria, after the U.K. parliament struck down such a move last year.

*  *  *

If you like your new strategy, you can keep it... to yourself

Prime Minister Tony Abbott awaits request from US on Iraq role

The Abbott government is expecting a "specific" request within days for Australian military involvement in a new war in Iraq after US President Barack Obama announced he would dramatically escalate an aerial bombing campaign and send military advisers.

SMH

12 September, 2014

The US-led assault, co-ordinated with international partners including Australia, will aim to seek out and destroy fighters from the Islamic State and will probably take months or even years.

Australia is prepared to provide fighter jets for bombing runs as well as support aircraft, but may also be asked to send Special Forces for training, advice and intelligence-gathering, though they would expressly have no combat role.

The expanding arena.

The US strategy, outlined by Mr Obama in a prime-time address in Washington, came as Australian intelligence authorities prepared to raise the nation's terrorism alert level – a move expected to be announced on Friday.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott confirmed Australian involvement was expected in Iraq.

"A specific request for military assistance in the form of air capability, in the form of military advisers, could come – it could come – but it hasn't yet come and if it does come it will be dealt with in the normal way," he said.

"There will be consideration by the national security committee, there will be consideration by the cabinet, and there will be consultation with the opposition."

Mr Abbott also confirmed he would attend a UN Security Council meeting convened by Washington to tackle the problem of foreign fighters going to the Middle East.

"I fully support President Obama's call for action and Australia will work with our international partners to combat this evil menace," he said.

Significantly, Mr Obama vowed for the first time he would "not hesitate to take action against ISIL [Islamic State] in Syria as well as Iraq" – raising the prospect that Australia also could get drawn into the considerably more complex Syrian conflict.

Mr Obama said this would be done by arming and training the moderate Syrian rebels who are fighting both extremists such as the Islamic State as well as the regime of dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Rodger Shanahan, a former army officer and now a Middle East expert at the Lowy Institute, said "the $64,000 question" was whether bolstering the beleaguered moderates in Syria to fight the Islamic State would backfire by strengthening either the Assad regime or other extremist groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra.

"Once you train them, how do you deploy them in Syria? Who are they supposed to target? There are so many unanswered questions," he said.

He said the Free Syrian Army – the loose term describing moderate rebels – was "not an army in the ordinary sense".

Questions also remain over the legal basis of a new war even after the establishment this week of a new government in Baghdad.

Australian National University international law expert Donald Rothwell said it was unclear on whose invitation Australia would be acting if it engaged in direct incursions into Iraq.

But he said the possibility of action in Syria raises even bigger issues.

"There is no chance that the government of Syria under Bashar al-Assad would want foreign forces arming rebels opposed to his government," he said.

Professor Rothwell said the US-led forces would need to meet one of three conditions to make the action legal: a United Nations Security Council resolution, a credible argument of self-defence, or an explicit invitation.

"There is no UN resolution and no self-defence argument … as a general proposition, there is nothing in international law that says states can go into other states."

In a further sign of Australia's intent, Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop said doing nothing was a riskier course than participation because radicalised 

Australians fighting in the conflict will probablyreturn home with violent ambitions.

"The risk of doing nothing outweighs the terrible risks associated with going after this strategy to defeat and destroy ISIL," she told the ABC's 7.30 program.

Arguing the case for a new US-led war extending into Syria, Mr Obama pledged that he would hunt down any terrorists that threatened the US, and that there would be no safe haven for terrorists.

He also adopted the approach of Mr Abbott in refusing to use the terrorist term Islamic State.

"ISIL is not 'Islamic'. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim," the President said.

"And ISIL is certainly not a state ... It is recognised by no government, nor the people it subjugates."

Assad, Moscow and Tehran condemn Obama's plan for air strikes against Isis

Claims that strikes would violate sovereignty, as Syrian rebels welcome move and other Arab states offer 'appropriate' support  

• A tale of two speeches: emboldened Obama moves from dove to hawk

• Illegal? Irrational? Irrelevant? Obama's Isis address falls down on every front

the Guardian

11 September, 2014

The Syrian government and its close allies in Moscow and Tehran warned Barack Obama that an offensive against Islamic State (Isis) within Syria would violate international law yesterday, hours after the US president announced that he was authorising an open-ended campaign of air strikes against militants on both sides of the border with Iraq.

Syrian opposition groups welcomed Obama's announcement and called for heavy weapons to fight the "terror" of Isis and Bashar al-Assad. Saudi Arabia and nine other Arab states pledged to back the US plan "as appropriate".

Hadi al-Bahra, head of the western-backed Syrian National Coalition, said the group "stands ready and willing to partner with the international community not only to defeat Isis but also rid the Syrian people of the tyranny of the Assad regime". In Reyhanli, on the Turkish-Syrian border, a spokesman for the Free Syrian Army (FSA) said that moderate anti-Assad forces urgently needed anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

But long-standing international divisions over Syria were starkly highlighed in the hours after the speech. Iran's foreign ministry said that "the so-called international coalition to fight the Isil [Islamic State] group ... is shrouded in serious ambiguities and there are severe misgivings about its determination to sincerely fight the root causes of terrorism."

Russia said it would not support any military action without a UN resolution authorising it. "The US president has spoken directly about the possibility of strikes by the US armed forces against Isil positions in Syria without the consent of the legitimate government," said a spokesman. "This step, in the absence of a UN security council decision, would be an act of aggression, a gross violation of international law." China said that the world should fight terror but that national sovereignty must be respected.

In Damascus, the Assad government warned against US raids. "Any action of any kind without the consent of the Syrian government would be an attack on Syria," said the national reconciliation minister, Ali Haidar. Analysts believe, however, that Assad would be likely to ignore strikes on Isis targets – and even seek to quietly cooperate with western efforts.

In a meeting with Staffan de Mistura, the new UN envoy for Syria, Assad stressed his commitment to fight "terrorism" but he made no mention of the US president's speech on Wednesday night.

"As long as air strikes only hit Isis they will be condemned as a violation of international law but won't be dealt with as aggression that requires retaliation," Jihad Makdissi, a former Syrian diplomat, told the Guardian.

Obama used a long-heralded address on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to lay out his response to the appearance of an aggressive jihadi insurgency in the heart of the Arab world. US polls show growing support for military action since Isis fighters captured large areas of northern Iraq and eastern Syria and beheaded two American citizens in the past month.

He compared the campaign to those waged against al-Qaida in Yemen and Somalia, where US drones, cruise missiles and special operations raids have battered local affiliates without, however, notably improving the stability of either country or dealing decisive blows.

Obama's new strategy won swift if vague support from America's Arab allies, with Saudi Arabia agreeing to train Syrian rebel fighters. John Kerry, the US secretary state, held talks in the port city of Jeddah with ministers from Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and six Gulf states. After the meeting, participants said they had agreed "as appropriate" to "many aspects" of the military campaign against Isis, to stop the flow of funds and fighters and help rebuild communities "brutalised" by the group. Support was also expressed for the new, more inclusive Baghdad government – seen as vital to persuade Iraq's disaffected Sunnis not to support Isis. MPs in Jordan, warned, however, that they would not tolerate any participation in US action.

"We welcome this new strategy," said Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurdish politician and one of Iraq's newly appointed deputy prime ministers. "There is an urgent need for action. People cannot sit on the fence. This is a mortal threat to everybody."

There was confusion over Britain's role after Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, said the UK would not take part in air strikes. But Downing Street quickly announced that UK participation had not been ruled out. Germany said it would not participate. Both countries have sent weapons and ammuniction to the Iraqi Kurds – part of the overall anti-Isis strategy.

The Pentagon is currently working on identifying suitable targets in Syria, according to White House officials. The US will also deploy a further 475 troops to Iraq, where they are expected to help identify targets.

US officials said that Kerry would be seeking to pressure Kuwait and Qatar to stop their citizens financing al-Qaida and Isis. The Saudis, stung by accusations of support for the jihadis, have already worked to crack down on funding and announced the arrest of scores of alleged terrorist sympathisers in recent weeks.

Obama said the air strikes were a necessary counter-terrorism measure to prevent the group from becoming a future threat to the US and therefore did not require fresh congressional approval. But he is expected to receive overwhelming congressional support for separate authorisation to provide military support to rival Syrian rebels like the FSA, a vote that some Republicans fear could help boost Democratic chances in this November's midterm elections by providing political support for his tough new foreign policy.

The US Air Force has already carried out over 150 airstrikes on Islamic States positions in Iraq, while some US politicians insisted airstrikes in Syria are also needed.

In a phone call with King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia made by Obama, both leaders shared their concerns over the threat posed by the Islamic State and agreed that a stronger Syrian opposition is essential to confronting extremists as well as the Assad regime, which has “lost all legitimacy,” according to a White House read out of the call.

US Secretary of State John Kerry was in the city of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, earlier this week, meeting with officials from Gulf Arab states to advance efforts to build a regional and international coalition to counter Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. He also held talks with representatives of Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Turkey.

However, reports say it is uncertain what support, materially or otherwise, Obama has either from the Europeans or Middle Eastern allies. Germany and the UK have both already pledged military support to the Kurdish forces deterring IS in Iraq.

President Obama told Congressional leaders on Tuesday that he had enough authority to take action against the militant group Islamic State, and does not need their formal approval.

The principal author of the 1973 Wars Powers Resolution, however, told the Institute for Public Accuracy, the President doesn’t have the authority.

“If the president orders acts of war in the absence of congressional approval, he risks impeachment by the House of Representatives for usurping a power the Constitution reserves exclusively to the Congress. If Obama wishes lawfully to order airstrikes in the territory of Iraq or Syria, he must first secure a resolution of approval from Congress,” said Paul Findley, a former Illinois Congressman.

Obama's Broad Coalition Cracks - UK, Germany Won't Support Airstrikes In Syria

Zero Hedge,

11 September, 2014

Well that didn't take long. After espousing his strategy last night of leading a broad coalition against ISIS, it appears President Obama's "allies" are backing away from the plan. 

As The WSJ reports, Germany and the U.K. on Thursday ruled out carrying out air strikes on Islamic State militants in Syria. It appears the Europeans, realizing the ire that these actions will likely cause to Putin, are stepping back - "We haven't been asked, nor will we do it," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters and his U.K. counterpart Philip Hammond explicitly ruled out air strikes in Syria, after the U.K. parliament struck down such a move last year. So that leaves the French?

As The WSJ reports,

Germany and the U.K. on Thursday ruled out carrying out air strikes on Islamic State militants in Syria, a day after President Barack Obama authorized the start of U.S. air strikes there.

"We haven't been asked, nor will we do it," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters when asked about German participation in air strikes against the Islamic State, known as ISIL or ISIS, in light of Mr. Obama's speech.

"We need to be honest with ourselves in the current situation, we don't yet have a final, blanket strategy which guarantees that we'll be successful against ISIS and similar groups," the German minister said in Berlin.

His U.K. counterpart Philip Hammond explicitly ruled out air strikes in Syria, after the U.K. parliament struck down such a move last year.

*  *  *

If you like your new strategy, you can keep it... to yourself

In Canberra obseqiuous fool, Tony Abbot eagerly awaits his instructions from his boss

Prime Minister Tony Abbott awaits request from US on Iraq role

The Abbott government is expecting a "specific" request within days for Australian military involvement in a new war in Iraq after US President Barack Obama announced he would dramatically escalate an aerial bombing campaign and send military advisers.

SMH

12 September, 2014

The US-led assault, co-ordinated with international partners including Australia, will aim to seek out and destroy fighters from the Islamic State and will probably take months or even years.

Australia is prepared to provide fighter jets for bombing runs as well as support aircraft, but may also be asked to send Special Forces for training, advice and intelligence-gathering, though they would expressly have no combat role.

The expanding arena.

The US strategy, outlined by Mr Obama in a prime-time address in Washington, came as Australian intelligence authorities prepared to raise the nation's terrorism alert level – a move expected to be announced on Friday.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott confirmed Australian involvement was expected in Iraq.

"A specific request for military assistance in the form of air capability, in the form of military advisers, could come – it could come – but it hasn't yet come and if it does come it will be dealt with in the normal way," he said.

"There will be consideration by the national security committee, there will be consideration by the cabinet, and there will be consultation with the opposition."

Mr Abbott also confirmed he would attend a UN Security Council meeting convened by Washington to tackle the problem of foreign fighters going to the Middle East.

"I fully support President Obama's call for action and Australia will work with our international partners to combat this evil menace," he said.

Significantly, Mr Obama vowed for the first time he would "not hesitate to take action against ISIL [Islamic State] in Syria as well as Iraq" – raising the prospect that Australia also could get drawn into the considerably more complex Syrian conflict.

Mr Obama said this would be done by arming and training the moderate Syrian rebels who are fighting both extremists such as the Islamic State as well as the regime of dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Rodger Shanahan, a former army officer and now a Middle East expert at the Lowy Institute, said "the $64,000 question" was whether bolstering the beleaguered moderates in Syria to fight the Islamic State would backfire by strengthening either the Assad regime or other extremist groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra.

"Once you train them, how do you deploy them in Syria? Who are they supposed to target? There are so many unanswered questions," he said.

He said the Free Syrian Army – the loose term describing moderate rebels – was "not an army in the ordinary sense".

Questions also remain over the legal basis of a new war even after the establishment this week of a new government in Baghdad.

Australian National University international law expert Donald Rothwell said it was unclear on whose invitation Australia would be acting if it engaged in direct incursions into Iraq.

But he said the possibility of action in Syria raises even bigger issues.

"There is no chance that the government of Syria under Bashar al-Assad would want foreign forces arming rebels opposed to his government," he said.

Professor Rothwell said the US-led forces would need to meet one of three conditions to make the action legal: a United Nations Security Council resolution, a credible argument of self-defence, or an explicit invitation.

"There is no UN resolution and no self-defence argument … as a general proposition, there is nothing in international law that says states can go into other states."

In a further sign of Australia's intent, Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop said doing nothing was a riskier course than participation because radicalised 

Australians fighting in the conflict will probablyreturn home with violent ambitions.

"The risk of doing nothing outweighs the terrible risks associated with going after this strategy to defeat and destroy ISIL," she told the ABC's 7.30 program.

Arguing the case for a new US-led war extending into Syria, Mr Obama pledged that he would hunt down any terrorists that threatened the US, and that there would be no safe haven for terrorists.

He also adopted the approach of Mr Abbott in refusing to use the terrorist term Islamic State.

"ISIL is not 'Islamic'. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim," the President said.

"And ISIL is certainly not a state ... It is recognised by no government, nor the people it subjugates."

Assad, Moscow and Tehran condemn Obama's plan for air strikes against Isis

Claims that strikes would violate sovereignty, as Syrian rebels welcome move and other Arab states offer 'appropriate' support

• A tale of two speeches: emboldened Obama moves from dove to hawk

• Illegal? Irrational? Irrelevant? Obama's Isis address falls down on every front

the Guardian

11 September, 2014

The Syrian government and its close allies in Moscow and Tehran warned Barack Obama that an offensive against Islamic State (Isis) within Syria would violate international law yesterday, hours after the US president announced that he was authorising an open-ended campaign of air strikes against militants on both sides of the border with Iraq.

Syrian opposition groups welcomed Obama's announcement and called for heavy weapons to fight the "terror" of Isis and Bashar al-Assad. Saudi Arabia and nine other Arab states pledged to back the US plan "as appropriate".

Hadi al-Bahra, head of the western-backed Syrian National Coalition, said the group "stands ready and willing to partner with the international community not only to defeat Isis but also rid the Syrian people of the tyranny of the Assad regime". In Reyhanli, on the Turkish-Syrian border, a spokesman for the Free Syrian Army (FSA) said that moderate anti-Assad forces urgently needed anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

But long-standing international divisions over Syria were starkly highlighed in the hours after the speech. Iran's foreign ministry said that "the so-called international coalition to fight the Isil [Islamic State] group ... is shrouded in serious ambiguities and there are severe misgivings about its determination to sincerely fight the root causes of terrorism."

Russia said it would not support any military action without a UN resolution authorising it. "The US president has spoken directly about the possibility of strikes by the US armed forces against Isil positions in Syria without the consent of the legitimate government," said a spokesman. "This step, in the absence of a UN security council decision, would be an act of aggression, a gross violation of international law." China said that the world should fight terror but that national sovereignty must be respected.

In Damascus, the Assad government warned against US raids. "Any action of any kind without the consent of the Syrian government would be an attack on Syria," said the national reconciliation minister, Ali Haidar. Analysts believe, however, that Assad would be likely to ignore strikes on Isis targets – and even seek to quietly cooperate with western efforts.

In a meeting with Staffan de Mistura, the new UN envoy for Syria, Assad stressed his commitment to fight "terrorism" but he made no mention of the US president's speech on Wednesday night.

"As long as air strikes only hit Isis they will be condemned as a violation of international law but won't be dealt with as aggression that requires retaliation," Jihad Makdissi, a former Syrian diplomat, told the Guardian.

Obama used a long-heralded address on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to lay out his response to the appearance of an aggressive jihadi insurgency in the heart of the Arab world. US polls show growing support for military action since Isis fighters captured large areas of northern Iraq and eastern Syria and beheaded two American citizens in the past month.

He compared the campaign to those waged against al-Qaida in Yemen and Somalia, where US drones, cruise missiles and special operations raids have battered local affiliates without, however, notably improving the stability of either country or dealing decisive blows.

Obama's new strategy won swift if vague support from America's Arab allies, with Saudi Arabia agreeing to train Syrian rebel fighters. John Kerry, the US secretary state, held talks in the port city of Jeddah with ministers from Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and six Gulf states. After the meeting, participants said they had agreed "as appropriate" to "many aspects" of the military campaign against Isis, to stop the flow of funds and fighters and help rebuild communities "brutalised" by the group. Support was also expressed for the new, more inclusive Baghdad government – seen as vital to persuade Iraq's disaffected Sunnis not to support Isis. MPs in Jordan, warned, however, that they would not tolerate any participation in US action.

"We welcome this new strategy," said Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurdish politician and one of Iraq's newly appointed deputy prime ministers. "There is an urgent need for action. People cannot sit on the fence. This is a mortal threat to everybody."

There was confusion over Britain's role after Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, said the UK would not take part in air strikes. But Downing Street quickly announced that UK participation had not been ruled out. Germany said it would not participate. Both countries have sent weapons and ammuniction to the Iraqi Kurds – part of the overall anti-Isis strategy.

The Pentagon is currently working on identifying suitable targets in Syria, according to White House officials. The US will also deploy a further 475 troops to Iraq, where they are expected to help identify targets.

US officials said that Kerry would be seeking to pressure Kuwait and Qatar to stop their citizens financing al-Qaida and Isis. The Saudis, stung by accusations of support for the jihadis, have already worked to crack down on funding and announced the arrest of scores of alleged terrorist sympathisers in recent weeks.

Obama said the air strikes were a necessary counter-terrorism measure to prevent the group from becoming a future threat to the US and therefore did not require fresh congressional approval. But he is expected to receive overwhelming congressional support for separate authorisation to provide military support to rival Syrian rebels like the FSA, a vote that some Republicans fear could help boost Democratic chances in this November's midterm elections by providing political support for his tough new foreign policy.