The number of foreign fighters who have joined ISIS now exceeds 20,000, illustrating the effectiveness of the group's recruitment strategies. Governments and private groups like CEP are experimenting with a variety of initiatives designed to counter the powerful and deceptive narratives of ISIS and prevent every more at-risk youth from joining its ranks. Among the groups trying to help families prevent their sons and daughters from becoming radicalized are several community based organizations that have garnered attention due to their unique composition: Mothers who have lost children to extremist groups.

Groups of mothers of children who have chosen jihad come from a variety of backgrounds and have sprung up in Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, Sweden, and the United States. These mothers have organized support groups and advocacy initiatives out of a common bond: losing their children to jihad.

One American mother, Abeyte Ahmed from Minneapolis, told CBS News that the pain of her loss never goes away. However, that pain is motivating her and other mothers to reach out to help other parents take preventive action.

The mothers against jihad go by many different names and operate independently, but they all are dedicated to the same cause, helping other families recognized the signs and dangers of extremism. These groups include, among others, Women Without Borders, Mothers for Life, Syrien ne bouge, agissons, Concerned Parents Collective, and Support for Families Touched by Violent Extremism. They are determined to prevent children from other families from becoming radicalized by providing the support they never had; a secure network of moral support, promotion of  reintegration for returned radicals, and education on parenting skills necessary to recognize radicalization.

For example, Austria-based Women Without Borders launched a project called “Mothers for Change,” which aims to help mothers notice signs of radicalization. Founder Edit Schlaffer believes women “must become visible players in the security arena.”

Mothers for Life established the “Open Letter Project,” which uses the foundation of the mother-child relationship in an attempt to convince children to reconsider their decisions and return from Syria and Iraq. Mothers for Life is an international network of mothers organized through the German Institute on Radicalization and de-Radicalization Studies. The project includes a three-page letter that aims to convince children to reject extremism and jihad and return home. The letter also encourages other children not to leave by emphasizing the strong mother-child bond as explained in the Quran.

The deep pain and yearning for the return of their children is made plain in each letter: The mothers write, “We did not want you to leave. We want you to return. We want you to live. Even if you think death will give you that ‘better’ life, remember that even the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Paradise lies at the feet of your mother" [Musnad Ahmad, Sunan An-Nasâ’i, Sunan Ibn Mâjah].”'

These mothers from around the world have decided to take action, not only because of the impact on their families, but because of dissatisfaction with government programs. European governments, such as in Belgium, France, and the U.K., arrest and jail returning jihadists or prohibit radicalized nationals from returning home. Parents favor therapy and reintegration support as a solution, as in Denmark’s Aarhus Model, which consists of counseling.

French mother Dominique Bons lost her son Nicolas to ISIS in Syria, and her biggest complaint is French authorities did nothing when she alerted them about her concerns about her son’s behavior. Due to this inaction, she and other parents formed the support group Syrien ne bouge, agissons which translates to "If nothing is changing, let's act."

The work of mothers against jihad has apparently attracted ISIS’s attention, as the group seems to have designed its most recent guidebook, “Sister’s Role in Jihad,” as a direct response. The ISIS guidebook urges mothers to “raise jihadi babies” through activities such as camping to learn about outdoor survival skills, using toy guns to practice aim, and playing with dolls to learn about beheadings. ISIS’s response clearly demonstrates its concern that the mothers may be making a difference.

As governments and the international community struggle to defeat the lure of ISIS and other extremist groups, the actions taken by these mothers are a welcome development.

And the mothers show no signs of backing away from the fight to prevent radicalization. In the words of Dominique Bons, a mother who has lost two of her children to violent extremism, "The mothers are on the front line. There are fathers, too, of course. But mothers will stop at nothing."

“Turkey narrowly averted a disaster,” stated the Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP) leader, Selahattin Demirtas after Turkish voters pushed his party past the 10 percent electoral threshold necessary to qualify for seats in the parliament.  The voting results will likely curb the authoritarian aspirations of President Recep Erdogan and his Islamist AKP Party. The pro-Kurdish HDP attracted votes from a broad swath of liberals, secularists, women and minority rights supporters in the historic June 7 election.  

The election outcome is promising for a country that has, despite strong economic growth in the last 10 years, seen significant democratic rights eroded under the Islamist rule of the AKP. As many analysts have written, the AKP has of late used its power to undermine the military, censor the media, jail journalists and political rivals, restrict women’s rights, and block access to the Internet and social media to silence criticism, all the while building stronger ties with Islamist movements in the Middle East.

On April 9, 2015, for example, Erdogan came to the Muslim Brotherhood’s rescue, stating that Turkey would not consider improving relations with Egypt until ex-president Mohammed Morsi was released from prison, the arbitrary ban on political parties in Egypt was removed and the 18,000 jailed followers of Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood were released.

The AKP’s defense of the Muslim Brotherhood is natural. In terms of ideology, neither Morsi, nor Erdogan or ISIS for that matter, differ in their worldview; they only differ in strategy. ISIS believes in force, while Erdogan believes in working through the system. As Erdogan said a few years ago, democracy is like a tram, "You ride it until you arrive at your destination, then you step off."

Turkey’s stance in defense of the Brotherhood is not welcome in Egypt.  Its president, General Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, in December implored Sunni Islam’s oldest theological seminary, al Azhar, to reform Islam. Sisi argued this was essential to combat growing Islamist extremism in the region.

Unfortunately, in most ways, Sisi’s, government has been as authoritarian as the AKP, making true democratic reform seem unrealistic in Egypt, at least in the near term.

As the Arab Spring has shown, men and women from North Africa to the Middle East support representation that recognizes pluralism. Despite the March terrorist attack on the Bardo Museum, only Tunisia has shown a sincere effort to chart a path toward freedom and inclusion and steer the country away from extremism. As the Atlantic reported after the terror attack in Tunis, even the Islamist Ennahda party has “at every crucial turn on the sometimes troubled path from dictatorship, embraced flexibility and moderation” to support a vision of “a republic of freedom, democracy, and social justice.”

The newly emerging pro-democratic coalition in the Turkish parliament will hopefully now focus on programs to educate and integrate all parts of Turkey. Voters in the rural parts of the country, as a result of AKP outreach and social welfare programs, formed the backbone of AKP’s support for more than 10 years.

The people of Turkey have spoken loudly in favor of freedom. We will have to wait and see how far that message resonates and whether it can be replicated elsewhere.

A June 2014 UN Environment Program (UNEP) report reveals that illegally harvested timber has become a key source of revenue for terror groups. Additionally, the report states that the scale of the illegal timber trade “has been totally underestimated and is now being regarded as very significant.” This significance apparently extends beyond traditional concerns over deforestation and destruction of animal habitat.

For example, the underground market in charcoal, a timber byproduct used for cooking and heating, is a significant revenue generator for the Somali terrorist group al-Shabab. According to one report, al-Shabab reaps between $25 and $68 million annually from sales and taxation of charcoal.

How can that lucrative funding stream be disputed? Illicit markets such as narcotics trafficking and even ivory smuggling are often highly organized and have elaborate supply chains. Each stage of these complex schemes are points of potential vulnerability that present opportunities for interdiction. Charcoal production, however, is a highly decentralized cottage industry. The process is under the control of no single entity. Even diversion and coercive taxation is controlled by various terrorist groups. Moreover, raw materials like timber are plentiful and the “technology” of charcoal production is incredibly simple and cheap. There are few barriers to entry into the business.  

Enforcement agencies, in addition, face the daunting task of trying to distinguish between legal and illicit charcoal inventories. This process is particularly difficult when the market consists of numerous local sellers and financial transactions are cash-based and therefore rarely produce a paper trail. Under such circumstances, the interdiction and confiscation of illicitly produced or taxed charcoal becomes virtually impossible.

The United States is acutely aware that certain illicit charcoal markets finance terrorism and moreover, effective policies to eradicate trafficking in illegally produced charcoal are few. Still, President Obama issued a well-meaning order banning Somali charcoal imports. While this ban is symbolically important, there remains ample revenue from local markets for al-Shabab and others to exploit. Thus, combatting this problem necessitates a more localized response.

Where broad government bans and sanctions have proven insufficient, helping to change consumer habits and preferences away from charcoal use could be a more effective solution. Efforts to combat this source of terrorism financing could be driven by NGO initiatives to reduce the carbon imprint resulting from home charcoal use.

Organizations, like the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, and others that distribute small, contained alternative fuel stoves that replace fuelwood and its byproducts for home cooking could be key in this effort. Supporting campaigns like these provide an alternative method to drive down consumer dependence on terrorist-related charcoal, as well as contribute to environmental preservation.

The Americans will leave one day, Quds Force commander General Qasem Soleimani once told Iraqi leaders, but Iran will remain Iraq’s neighbor. That lesson has only been reinforced by the lead role Iran has since taken in the fight against ISIS.

Iran aspires to Middle East hegemony and its foreign policy is designed to achieve that goal. We see this Iran’s support for Syria’s Bashar Assad, its support for Houthi rebels in Yemen, in nuclear negotiations with the West, and in its support for Iraqi forces against ISIS. Iran’s message is that it is in control and any decision of significance must go through Tehran.

Iran saw the power vacuum in Iraq left by Saddam Hussein’s 2003 defeat as an opportunity to expand its influence at the expense of the U.S. and other Mideast countries. Iran armed and supported Shiite militants fighting against the U.S. and exploited Iraq’s sectarian tensions. The U.S. pulled its remaining forces from Iraq in December 2011—a year after Soleimani orchestrated an Iraqi coalition government for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki on the condition he insist all American troops leave the country. U.S. troops departed, but Iran remained. (Soleimani’s influence in Iraq was detailed in this January post.)

With the rise of ISIS, Soleimani and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) are on the ground again in Iraq and Iranian leaders regularly praise their noble fight. The Iranians are supplying heavy weaponry to Iraqi forces, including Iranian proxies such as the Badr Organization. Soleimani is hailed as a hero in Iranian media and Iran is increasingly viewed as Iraq’s champion. In March, the New York Times described security checkpoints between Tikrit and Baghdad decorated with posters of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. For a country with designs on regional supremacy, this is prime propaganda material.

In December 2014, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called “the net effect” of Iran’s campaign against ISIS in Iraq “positive.” In the short term, this is true. ISIS represents a threat to regional stability and particularly to U.S. allies such as Egypt, Jordan, and Israel. In the long term, however, Iran is creating puppet strings throughout the region.

We are already seeing evidence of Iran’s political sway in Iraq. Nouri Maliki’s successor, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, recently criticized the Saudi campaign in Yemen, ignoring Iran’s interference in that country in support of Houthi rebels and questioning whether Saudi Arabia might invade Iraq next. “The idea that you intervene in another state unprovoked just for regional ambition is wrong,” he said. Without a broader context, one might think al-Abadi was talking about Iran, not Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is challenging Iran’s influence in Yemen by confronting the Iranian-backed Houthis. Iran has said it would use all of its influence—and it has a lot in the country, according to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif—to bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Unlike in Yemen, Iran’s presence in Iraq extends beyond its proxies. Iran has committed troops and its top general, Soleimani, to the fight against ISIS. In Iraq, the challenger to Iranian influence is the U.S., which is also fighting ISIS, but not by committing troops like Iran. Because of this, it is instead the highly visible Soleimani and the IRGC that are praised as Iraq’s saviors in local media.

Yemen and Iraq are pieces of the same puzzle that Iran hopes will come together to reveal Iran as being a stabilizing force in the Middle East. Barring a string of highly visible defeats of Iranian forces in Iraq, which would likely also strengthen ISIS, Iran’s influence in that country appears secure for the foreseeable future.

As Soleimani said, Iran will always be Iraq’s neighbor.