Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

US President Barack Obama recently altered his hesitant attitude toward the Islamic State (IS) and declared war on the group. The Arab states including Saudi Arabia responded positively. A new Middle East anti-terrorism alliance has almost been formed.

China is a rising country and has huge interests in Iraq. There have been constant voices inciting China to take part in military strikes against the IS. This is understandable, but China should adopt a prudent approach.

Any international actions, especially military ones that China participates in must be justified. But the US-led anti-terror campaign still lacks legitimacy.

It's true that the US initiative of striking the IS this time was invited by the Iraqi government and backed by multiple regions and countries. It has more legitimacy than the Iraq War that started in 2003. But complex US interests are involved.

If the US really wants to wipe out the IS, it must cooperate with Syria and Iran, which have the most capabilities to curb the expansion of this group.

Although the Syrian authorities claimed that they had "no reservations" about airstrikes as long as the US coordinated with them, the Obama administration specified that it would not cooperate with the Bashar al-Assad regime. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State John Kerry ruled out cooperation with Iran.

Without the cooperation of Syria and Iran, wiping out the IS is sheer nonsense.

Since the US has not given up the idea of overthrowing the Assad regime, it is not difficult to conclude that as the US drives the IS into Syria, the IS will have direct confrontation with Syrian governmental forces, an internecine situation that Washington is willing to see.

Even if the US carries out military strikes against the IS in Syria, it could easily become a violation of international law if it doesn't gain permission from the Syrian government.

Meanwhile, it is possible that the US cracks down on Syrian governmental forces under the guise of an anti-terror campaign. In such circumstances, there's no need for China to take part.

From the perspective of interests, it is largely the bottom line and interests of the US that are challenged by the IS. China has neither the need nor the capability to worry about others. In fact, Obama himself kept an ambiguous attitude toward the IS two months after its emergence, only because it hadn't threatened US core interests.

Recently, two US journalists were beheaded by the IS, and the video was put on the Internet. This enraged the US public. The Republicans pointed their fingers at the weak Obama administration, which is facing a public support crisis and upcoming mid-term elections.

The IS claimed it would overthrow the Saudi regime and bring bloodshed to the US, threatening US core interests in the Middle East and on its own land. Therefore, the US aim of striking the IS is not to provide public services for the Middle East, but out of domestic pressure and its own interests.

Comparatively, China's long-distance military deployment capability is limited and it doesn't need to get involved, given the fact that the IS hasn't threatened China's core interests.

From the angle of responsibilities, the rise of the IS is the result of Washington's mistaken Middle East policies, so the US is obliged to undertake the anti-terror work.

The US-initiated Iraq War sowed the seeds for the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sharm, the predecessor of the IS.

Since 2011, the US indulgence of the Syrian opposition offered opportunities for the IS to grow. The hasty withdrawal of the US from a vulnerable Iraq also gave room for the IS to make up for the power vacuum.

More importantly, we still know little about the real face of the IS. Currently, Western media outlets have given full coverage to the cruelty and extremism of the IS. But according to various sources, the group provides water and electricity in its occupation areas and well manages bakeries, banks, schools, courts and mosques. It is unclear if the IS is a heinous terrorist group or a product of Middle East politics. It is too early for China to take part in military actions against it. Such prudence also proves China is a responsible power.

The author is an associate research fellow at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn