Being shaken by the "murderous reach" of recent terrorist attacks, which apportioned blame to the Islamic State, Jeffrey D. Sachs seeks to give his take on fighting ISIS. His commentary is long on words and short on sustainable advice. He believes, "the longer ISIS maintains its strongholds in Syria and Iraq, the longer its terrorist network will create such carnage." He says it's time to eradicate ISIS, which is "not especially difficult to defeat." But he sees an unwillingness of "the states involved in Iraq and Syria, including the United States and its allies" to treat ISIS "as its primary foe."

It is true that in terms of military capabilities, ISIS doesn't have a standing army like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, hence its strength is rather "miniscule" with a ragtag bunch of foreign recruits. For this reason it is deeply engaged in classic asymmetric warfare - terrorist attacks on civilians and soft targets. The IS has exploited the schism that fuels the feud between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia to stoke sectarian violence, selling itself as the defender of Sunni Islam.

It's wishful thinking that peace returns to the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is keen on keeping Iran's influence at bay, and turns a blind eye to its citizens supporting various Islamist groups that fight the Assad regime in Syira, backed by Tehran. It's unclear whether the recent bombing in Saudi Arabia's second holiest site, Medina will change its policies, even though the chickens have come home to roost. Turkey has been clamouring for Assad's ouster, but it sees the Kurds as a bigger threat to its territorial integrity than ISIS, as they seek to achieve statehood. The Syrian rebels are more keen on toppling Assad, than fighting ISIS. Israel also "prioritizes the removal of Assad over the defeat of ISIS," because it fears to be "left with a Hezbollah and Iran that have greater capabilities.”

No doubt, the neocons under GW Bush is to blame for the Iraq war. The toppling of Saddam Hussein ushered in a Shia-led government that had marginalised Sunni officers, who later helped ISIS rise to power. But Sachs is not entirely right about "the multiple US wars in the Middle East – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and others" aiming "to remove the Soviet Union, and then Russia, from the scene and to give the US hegemonic sway." Does Russia have a big footprint in Iraq and Libya? The proxy war fought in Syria and Yemen between Iran/Russia and Saudi Arabia/the US does remind of tensions in the Cold War era.

Sachs says: "Russia and Iran, too, have pursued their own regional interests....Yet both have signaled their readiness to cooperate with the US to defeat ISIS, and perhaps to solve other problems as well. The US has so far spurned these offers, because of its focus on toppling Assad." How true is it? The US is more keen on fighting ISIS, than removing Assad. He also lays out "three strategic flaws in US foreign policy, along with a fatal tactical flaw" - the "imperial overreach" and the "neocon quest for US hegemony through regime change;" CIA's arming and training of Sunni Islamists funded by Saudi Arabia; "the US perception of Iran and Russia as implacable foes of America." As a result the US has failed in fighting "a two-front war against both Assad and ISIS" in Syria.

It is true that when Assad was "weakened," Islamists - ISIS and al-Nusra Front "filled the vacuum." Sachs has failed to mention that Assad, emboldened by Iran/Russian support, is no longer keen on negotiating with the opposition. He has vowed to retake "every inch of" his country, by letting ISIS wipe out the US/Saudi-backed rebels, before he takes on the IS.

Sachs sees in fighting ISIS an opportunity for the US to reach out to Iran and Russia, and for Saudi Arabia and Turkey "to find a new modus vivendi with Iran." He urges the US to accept whatever outcome: "Yes, Assad would remain in power; yes, Russia would retain an ally in Syria; and yes, Iran would have influence there." He insists on denying ISIS "its base of operations" in Iraq and Syria, even if it wouldn't put an end to terrorist attacks.

He sees that weakening ISIS "could lay the groundwork for reducing regional tensions more generally. The US and Russia could begin to reverse their recent new cold war through shared efforts to stamp out jihadist terrorism. (A pledge that NATO will not offer admission to Ukraine or escalate missile defenses in Eastern Europe would also help.)" Sachs is an idealist.

His idealism is beyond belief: "Israel’s security could be enhanced by bringing Iran into a cooperative economic and geopolitical relationship with the West, in turn enhancing the chances for a long-overdue two-state settlement with Palestine." The ISIS phenomenon has much "the shortcomings of current Western – particularly US – strategy" to thank for. "The West can defeat ISIS. The question is whether the US will undertake the strategic reassessment needed to accomplish that end." In the past Sachs accused the US of meddling, but now he urges the US to be more engaged - by cooperating with Iran and Russia, and bringing Saudi Arabia and Iran closer together. My question is, are they willing and ready to make things happen?