Tightening the 'IS' noose

Who would have thought it? The United Nations Security Council is capable of action, after all. Having so painfully failed thus far on the brutal Syrian civil war and the conflict between Israeils and Palestinians, the UN's most powerful body has delivered in the case of Iraq. This resolution, approved by all 15 member states, means business.

By capping their sources of income, Resolution 2161 aims to rip out the financial foundations underpinning the advance of the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (IS) terror group, and also the Al-Nusra Front that is active in Syria. Earnings from militant-held oil facilities in Syria, and now northern Iraq, should be covered by the measure. This means that, effective immediately, doing business with "IS" or Al-Nusra is forbidden. The Security Council has also specifically targeted six key financiers of IS, who face travel bans and assets freezes.

What's more, the world powers have agreed, with uncharacteristic unanimity, to use one of the strongest sanctioning weapons in their arsenal. The resolution is under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, making it legally binding for member states, with the threat of economic or even military measures against countries ignoring the trade restrictions. Above all, this is a nod to other countries not yet identified publicly. The measure will be noted with particular interest in wealthy Arab Gulf states, which have heavily supported the IS advance in past months. It's this strong international warning that lends the resolution particular weight.

Shared interests

Its second part is aimed above all at the European countries, Germany included, from which IS has successfully recruited hundreds of fighters. The text urges countries to take national measures "to suppress the flow of foreign terrorist fighters" into Iraq. Even though this part of the resolution is non-binding in its formulation, Europeans would be acting in self-interest by trying to bolt the doors to conflict zones for so-called "terror tourists." At the end of the day, no European country wants to be confronted by radicalized returnees on their own doorstep.

The Security Council's abililty to act so strongly was tied to Russia's voting position. While President Vladimir Putin continues to cripple the UN body by blocking proposals for Syria or Ukraine, he's backing the IS sanctions. He's acting in self-interest too: Rather like Western countries, Putin is alarmed at the rapid growth of a terror movement that lays no stock in borders or governments, which honors an interpretation of the Koran and not the world order that has existed in the Middle East since the Second World War. What happens if this spark rekindles the flames among the Muslim populations in the south of the Russian Federation?

More pragmatic than principled

As sobering as this might be, it was ultimately pure Realpolitik - not the humanitarian plight of Yazidi, Christians and other religious minorities - that led to a unanimous vote.

For the United States and the European Union, this sanction-laden UN resolution marks the start of a more long-term strategy for combating IS. The emergency humanitarian aid deliveries and airstrikes were urgent measures born out of immediate necessity. Delivering weapons to the Kurdish fighters, a measure now involving European countries as well, was already a longer-term step. Friday's UN resolution should pull the IS noose even tighter, stopping their monetary and military supplies. Whether it delivers on its promises will also depend on the political will of the countries which just offered their unanimous support.