This chapter explores the foreign policy discourse of the old Anglosphere coalition during the third phase of the crisis and civil war in Syria. First, the chapter considers the Anglosphere response to the rise of Islamic State, as the Anbar Campaign saw the group seize territory in northern Iraq. Second, it analyses the re-working of discourses of the War on Terror to articulate and frame the new threat for Anglosphere audiences. Third, it explores the discursive war of position that structured foreign policy debates in the USA, UK and Australia. The chapter explores how, despite some resistance, the Anglosphere rallied against the new threat in contrast to the Syrian Civil War’s first two phases.

The chapter surveys crimes against humanity and genocide in the conflict. The authors provide a legal conceptual analysis of the two different international crimes – which share common features distinguishing them from ordinary crimes and yet are also legally distinguished from each other. Moodrick-Even Khen and Siman focus on specific conduct that form two of the most documented crimes in the Syrian conflict: the crimes against humanity of torture and extermination of prisoners in detention facilities of the Syrian government; and the genocide of the Yazidis committed by ISIS. The legal analysis is used to explain who, among the various parties to the conflict in Syria, is responsible for each crime and the justifications for the allegations against each party.