Russia’s Defense Ministry released a statement Friday that it is investigating whether it had killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, along with several other senior ISIS officials, in a May 28 airstrike that targeted a senior ISIS leadership meeting in a suburb of the group’s de facto capital of Raqqa, Syria. The reports come less than a week after Syrian state television announced Baghdadi’s death as a result of the Russian airstrike.
“According to information that is being verified through various channels, the leader of ISIS ... Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was also present at the meeting and was killed as a result of the strike,” the ministry said.
In addition to Baghdadi, the ministry claimed that other key ISIS figures that had been killed in the strike including the emir of Raqqa Abu al-Haji al-Masri, Ibrahim al-Naef al-Hajj, and ISIS security chief Suleiman al-Sawah.
However, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stopped short of confirming Baghdadi’s death, saying that "so far, I have no 100 percent confirmation of the information that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been killed.”
Previous reports have claimed that Baghdadi had been killed in U.S. and coalition airstrikes, but they turned out to be false. It is believed, however, that Baghdadi was significantly wounded in at least one of the strikes. The elusive ISIS leader’s last public appearance occurred in June 2014 when he declared a “caliphate” in Mosul’s Great Mosque of al-Nuri in and his most recent audio recording was released last November.
General Stephen Townsend, commander of anti-ISIS Operation Inherent Resolve, said in April that he had “no idea” where Baghdadi was hiding. U.S. officials said they could not confirm the Russian reports and are investigating the matter.
The Cipher Brief’s Bennett Seftel spoke with Cipher Brief Network Expert and counterterrorism expert Bruce Hoffman to discuss the potential impact of Baghdadi’s death on ISIS.
The Cipher Brief: This week there have been reports that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed in a May 28 Russian airstrike outside of Raqqa. What would Baghdadi’s death mean for ISIS moving forward?
Bruce Hoffman: The reports are still unconfirmed but, for me, the most interesting thing is that this is far from the first time that Baghdadi’s death is being reported. In the past, he has certainly come very close to being killed. So these reports are entirely plausible.
What worries me the most, though, is that ISIS has taken a leaf from al Qaeda’s playbook, not only in their overall strategy, which I’ve argued in previous interviews, but also in cloning themselves to the same extent and manner that al Qaeda’s affiliates and associates at a point became almost as threatening and as powerful as al Qaeda central – in particular al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. We see the same phenomenon unfolding with ISIS, where, for instance, its Libyan arm played an obviously critical role, perhaps even the preeminent role, in the Manchester bombing last month.
What this means is that ISIS – perhaps as al Qaeda did long ago – has gone beyond just the charismatic leadership and organizational skills of one single individual. In other words, even taking out the head of the organization would not cause it the same damage today that it might have some years ago.
This is part of the group’s own strategy to ensure its longevity and continued relevance as it experiences serial battlefield reverses and territorial losses in Syria and Iraq. Further, given how close Baghdadi has come to being killed in the past, ISIS has recognized the fragility of its leadership and has put together a structure that’s more decentralized and that ensures that ISIS will continue to exist in one form or another.
TCB: Baghdadi’s last public appearance occurred when he declared a “caliphate” in Mosul’s Great Mosque of al-Nuri, and his most recent audio recording was released in November. Does he still play an important role in the organization?
Hoffman: There are two dimensions to that. One is that we don’t know, given the severity of injuries that Baghdadi has sustained in previous attacks, how well he has recovered or not. Therefore, it is difficult to assess what sort of leadership or day-to-day managerial role he plays in the organization. It could well be that for the last couple of years, he hasn’t played a very prominent or salient role at all, and, therefore, his elimination, at least in practical terms, doesn’t really matter.
On the other hand, it could be that after having come so close to being killed in one of these raids, that Baghdadi has just hunkered down and adopted a much more careful security profile, and that he is still exercising enormous authority behind the scenes. It’s hard to gauge that.
What you can say is, as had been the case with al Qaeda in the 2008-2011 time period when the U.S. killed several key al Qaeda leaders, the U.S. and other forces have been very effective at systematically dismantling ISIS’ leadership through air strikes, drone attacks, and killings on the ground. Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, who would have been the most logical and clear successor to Baghdadi, was eliminated last summer.
Now this has other implications. Most of the people in the senior ranks of ISIS who have been eliminated were the die-hard members who were resolutely opposed to any sort of reconciliation or cooperation with al Qaeda. At least according to my reading, probably the only man left standing who is really resolutely opposed to that is Baghdadi. So in that respect, his death may well pave the way for some form of reconciliation or re-amalgamation between ISIS and al Qaeda, or at least make it much more possible than it might have been in the past.
All of these things have potentially destabilizing second- and third-order effects. Not that there is any reason to avoid eliminating Baghdadi, but it emphasizes that if these reports do in fact prove to be accurate, we need to temper our jubilation and satisfaction that a key implacable enemy of the U.S. has been eliminated with understanding of what the repercussions and dynamics of this elimination might be.
TCB: Does it make a difference whether Baghdadi is killed in a Russian air strike as opposed to the U.S.? What could the ramifications be?
Hoffman: It is momentous if Russia and not the U.S. is responsible for Baghdadi’s death in a sense that it provides them with enormous bragging rights that only burnishes their reputation and enhances their influence and perhaps power in the region. If they have in fact achieved this feat, then they stepped in and elbowed the U.S. aside as a key player as what will be seen as the war against ISIS. The bragging rights to having killed Baghdadi are not inconsequential.
