Trump’s ISIS speech could be a “game changer,” analysts say, a key part of the president’s broader effort to counter the militant group.
Trump has been on the defensive since a speech at the United Nations in September in which he said the U.S. should be prepared to take out ISIS’ “emirs and senior leadership” in order to protect the U,S.
Trump’s decision to deliver his speech on Monday was widely seen as a response to ISIS, which is fighting to establish a “caliphate” across much of Iraq and Syria.
“The question is, how do we move forward?” said Adam Entous, a professor at American University who specializes in the Islamic State.
“This is a game changer.
We’ve got a long way to go.
This is a real opportunity to address this, but there’s no way we can avoid it.”
Entous pointed to a speech Trump gave last month at the Republican National Convention in which the president said that “if the president can do it, then we can do anything.”
But that speech did not lead to any new policies to address the terrorist group.
The Trump administration has said the speech was “a response to a threat that the president did not take seriously,” but analysts say the speech could trigger an outpouring of questions from ISIS supporters and the media.
Trump had been under pressure from the White House to address ISIS.
After the speech, he said that he “didn’t want to use the phrase ’emirs’ and senior leaders’ because that’s a bad word.
It’s a derogatory term that is used against Muslims and it’s not something that should be used by anyone.”
Trump has called ISIS a “cancer” and said the United States should be willing to kill its own citizens in order “to defeat this threat to our way of life.”
But Trump has also been under scrutiny from other leaders in the world, including in Europe, who have warned against using the term.
“I think it is a terrible, horrible, horrible term, and that’s the way I look at it,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Sunday.
“If you use the term, it creates a lot of confusion and makes it a bit more difficult for the U and others to understand.”
A statement from the State Department, however, said that the term “is used for the same reason as the term ’emir’ or ’empowerment leader’ and is not in itself offensive.”
The statement continued: “The U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 2254 on August 28, 2017, which referred to ISIS as a global threat and directed that all members of the Security Council take all necessary actions to combat its activities, including by targeting and targetinging its leadership and financiers.
It also referred to the group as a ‘global terrorist organization.'”
Trump’s “fight against ISIS” could have consequences for other countries that have backed the U., especially in the Middle East, said Stephen Sestanovich, a former U.K. ambassador to the United Arab Emirates.
“There is a lot to say about how we are going to be dealing with ISIS, and we’re going to have to make sure that our policy is not based on fear and that we are not going to do what we know is not going for the best interests of the U: We have to get tough on this,” he said.
Sestantovich said the idea that the speech will lead to a change in U.T.S.-U.S., the U.-led coalition fighting ISIS, has not gone away.
“Trump’s speech, it could be, I don’t know, a game-changer.
We need to be able to take a more balanced approach,” he told ABC News.
“We need to keep the pressure on.
And I’m very worried about the consequences.
I think the speech has the potential to be a gamechanger for other people in the region and other people around the world who are in a similar position.”