The Economist, The Huffington Post, CNN, The Boston Globe, and many other media outlets have reported on the “new normal” after the terrorist attacks in Brussels. The belief is that in some way, the attacks in Madrid (2004), London (2005), Paris (2015), and now Brussels (2016), are all connected in an extensive plot by Islamic terrorists to destroy the fabric of Western Europe. However, it is much more accurate to link the Brussels attacks with the recent attacks on Istanbul in January and March.
Brussels, the capital of Belgium, is the base for many institutions of the European Union, such as the European Parliament and the European Council. It is also home to the secretariat of Benelux and the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In essence, Brussels is the de facto capital of Europe.
Istanbul is the most populous city in Turkey. It has been the historic home of the Roman, Byzantine, and most importantly the Ottoman empires. Turkey has continued to be a major regional power in the Middle East, but it did not join the coalition to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) until recently, when it was pressured to do so by the international community. It is arguably ISIS’s most geopolitically prominent Middle Eastern rival Brussels and Istanbul are population centers of two of ISIS’s most threatening enemies—the predominantly Christian (and increasingly secular) European continent and Turkey, a Middle Eastern neighbor. Attacking these cities is both strategic and symbolic. ISIS’s territory has contracted significantly after extensive airstrikes from the Counter-ISIS Coalition. Over 25,000 ISIS fighters and senior commanders—such as Fadhil Ahmad al-Hayali, ISIS’s second in command—have been neutralized. ISIS is beset militarily from the ground and the sky, so it needs to undermine its closest enemies strategically and symbolically.
The attack on an historic town square and a commercial center in Istanbul targeted tourists. The attack on the European capital of Brussels targeted civilians. There was no direct threat to military assets on either side—ISIS’s strategy was not to engage directly with the armed forces. The group specifically targeted civilians in these areas because they were soft targets in crowded, tight spaces that could be efficiently harmed with explosive devices.
ISIS touts its violence against Western countries and a sense of community amongst its members to appeal to potential members and sympathizers. By prompting retaliatory attacks from the West and Turkey and thus further alienating potential ISIS sympathizers, the organizations can start a vicious cycle of terrorist violence in those countries that is carried out by radicalized European and Turkish nationals. This could reduce the need for foreign extremists to travel to ISIS (and thus evade surveillance) and could potentially trigger a rise in domestic terrorism throughout Europe. The attacks in Brussels and Istanbul also serve to energize existing members in their fight against the Western world and offer hope in the face of battleground defeats and shrinking borders.
ISIS is protecting its core territory while simultaneously attacking its closest enemies to show that it is still capable of waging war on the Western world.