Risk of attacks after the death of the Islamic state leader

According to the president of the United States, with the death of the leader of the Islamic State, the world should be safer; however, the international scenario appears to be a concern for the possible reprisals and retaliations of the Caliphate. In western countries the level of alert is among the highest, precisely because of the fear of attacks that could avenge the head of the Islamic State, killed in the American raid. In fact, if a classic military response seems unlikely, due to the defeat on the field of caliphate forces, the possibility of attacks is assessed very seriously. The tactic of the Islamic State, which developed in parallel with the military garrison of the occupied territory, was to promote an internationalization of the jihad to export it outside the confines of the caliphate and, at the same time, to simplify the methods of terrorist action and facilitating the identification with the soldiers of the Islamic State. We have witnessed terrorist modalities, which outside of custom, have used improper weapons as instruments to offend and, therefore, more readily available than traditional or explosive weapons. Furthermore, the propaganda from the caliphate has encouraged the recruitment a posteriori, allowing anyone who had committed a terrorist act in the name of the jihad to be recognized as a soldier of the Islamic State. For all these reasons the level of attention is high, precisely because the danger of hostile acts coming from individuals, and therefore impossible to prevent with the normal intelligence action, is a possible consequent emotional reaction to the killing of leaders of the caliphate. Even the words in no way sober and in the slightest taste of the American president could favor resentment against Westerners, intended as a goal of revenge. The danger of individual actions is considered higher than an action coming directly from the caliphate, thanks to more information available on the structure of the Islamic State, understood as official training and not in a broader sense, including also unofficial and unknown adherents ; also because, in this phase, the caliphate could privilege an action that has as immediate objective the safety of the organization, with respect to the retaliation. From the international point of view the action that led to the elimination of the caliphate leader was coordinated with the participation of military forces also in conflict with each other, as in the case of Turks and Kurds, both publicly thanked by Trump. In addition to the Syrian Kurds also the Iranians and precisely the Turks say they have collaborated with US forces; in particular, the foreign minister of Ankara underlined that the Turkish role was important for the success of the operation. The official statements of the representative of the Turkish government, coinciding with the operations against the Kurds, seem to aim at obtaining international recognition at a time of almost unanimous condemnation of the diplomatic audience. Another reason may be the search for an accreditation, above all American, in the confrontation that Turkey has carried out with Syria and which needs support in a moment of confrontation with Assad's forces intervened in the framework of the new alliance with the Kurds. It should also be remembered that the area of ​​operations against the leader of the caliphate and where the spokesman of the Islamic State also died falls within a territory presided over by the Islamist Syrian militias, which are supported by Turkey, especially in its anti-Kurdish function. What the Turkish foreign minister declared and remarked could also be an attempt not to credit Ankara with protecting the Islamic state terrorists, which Turkey favored and used against Assad and the Kurdish militias.