U.S. President Barack Obama's plan for fighting the Islamic State (IS) is essentially U.S.-led air strikes supporting Iraqi Security Forces and Kurdish militia Peshmerga on the ground. But the Iraqi security forces have proved dysfunctional and the Kurdish forces are not strong enough. So far the plan is not succeeding.

There is an alternative plan: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has proposed to visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Haydar al-Abadi an anti-IS axis including Syria, Lebanon and Iraq that would be led by Iran.

Rouhani's plan partly coincides with the one suggested by Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. Gelb wrote on Oct. 18: There is only one way to check the Islamic State, and that is for the United States to work with Bashar Assad's Syria and Iran.

In an earlier article Gelb stated: Washington must forge new alliances to meet the jihadi challenge. One of its partners should be Iran. He admitted that political opposition to his proposal would be fierce in both countries, but he insisted that there is no realistic alternative. "Only Assad's Syria and Iran can and would provide plausible ground forces in short order. Assad's army numbers over 100,000, and his air force contains around 300 jets...Syria is still the best positioned and most usable outfit among the neighboring Arab states. Iran's forces are even more potent."

Syria and Iran, however, have charged the Obama administration for excluding them from the international coalition in the battle against the IS. Syria has also warned that unauthorized U.S. air strikes on Syria may trigger the "first sparks of fire" in the region.

It seems unlikely that Obama would accept Leslie Gelb's proposal. The Rouhani plan is in fact a counter to Obama's plan.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor to The National Interest, wrote an excellent article on the complexity of the multisided regional struggle in the Middle East, instead of a simple conflict between good and evil as seen by the Obama administration.

Carpenter points out that there are numerous factions, each with its own policy agenda, involved in the war against IS. The Islamic State has important allies in both Iraq and Syria. It is no accident that IS has been strongest in the Sunni heartlands of both countries as it is supported by the Sunni tribes. The primary goal of IS and its Sunni allies is to topple the governments in both Damascus and Baghdad.

What Rouhani has proposed is a loose alliance of Shiite states that are devoting their attention to preserving the incumbent regimes in Damascus and Baghdad.

The traditional Sunni powers Turkey, Egypt, as well as Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies all want to curb Iran's regional influence. But there is also significant infighting among the parties for preeminence. Turkey regards the Kurds as more dangerous than IS and it does not want to get involved in an intra-Arab conflict. So with its powerful military, it remains on the sidelines. It even opposes U.S. air drops in support of the Kurdish forces defending Kobani.

As for the Kurds, their principal goal is to establish "Greater Kurdistan," independent from Iraq, Turkey and Syria. So they are at odds with all three countries. They are currently fighting IS to defend their capital Erbil in Iraq and their border town Kobani in Syria. They are a loyal ally of the United States and its European partners.

In these complex circumstances, will Rouhni's alternative plan work?

How the two plans will interact remains to be seen.

The writer is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit: http://www.h5a3.com/opinion/zhaojinglun.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.