Islamic state group and United States interests in Iraq

Rasoul rezaie faramani

M.A., Political Science, Young Researchers and Elite Club, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University ,Kermanshah, Iran

abstract

After the withdrawal of US forces in 2011 from Iraq it seems that the security and stability of the country has guaranteed and Iraqi forces can preserve security of the country and US combating terrorism mission has completed, but the crises in Iraq were over the imagine. ISIS or Islamic state abruptly captured Mosul the second largest city of Iraq in 10 June 2014 and bring all the attention to middle east and specially to Iraq. at first Obama's administrations respect to ISIS attacks was idol or at least wait for future happenings but when ISIS threatened Irbil the Iraqi Kurdistan capital Obama ordered bombarding ISIS bases. there is a question that what is the main ISIS consequences for US interests in Iraq? this paper examines the ISIS implications for US interests in Iraq and discuses ISIS impacts on Iraq security and stability. apparently ISIS has challenged US legacy that was based on unified, federal and democratic Iraq without terrorism and threat of energy security.

key words ISIS, Iraq, US interests, terrorism, energy security

Introduction

Political power in the modern history of Iraq, from the time its borders were created by the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) until the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003, was dominated by minority Sunnis. However, with the introduction of democracy in Iraq in 2003, the Shia majority has been able to secure the Prime Minister’s office at the ballot box, leaving the former Sunni governing class out in the cold.[1]Tensions in the Middle East have reached new heights as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) seized further control over the

Northern regions of these two countries. The Sunni extremist militant group appears intent on marching towards Baghdad. For the United States, ISIS thereby presents difficult and limited policy choices. Returning US combat forces to Iraq has been rejected categorically by US President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry, preferring instead to encourage local Iraqi forces to lead counter-offensives against ISIS.[2]The ISIS threat is eroding the borders of both Iraq and Syria, and it represents an immediate and significant threat to the surrounding region. ISIS also represents an evolving threat to the United States, Europe, and global security in the form of international terrorism enabled by the group’s thousands of foreign fighters and its abundance of cash and military resources. An environment of chaos and great suffering has allowed ISIS to emerge. [3 ]The takeover of northern and northwest Iraq by the ISIS organization , following its seizure of northeastern Syria, is further evidence of the growing strength of al-Qaeda and its affiliates as they advance towards establishment of a regional Islamic caliphate. It represents another stage in the takeover by radical jihadists exploiting the weaknesses of the central governments of weak or failing states. Seizing large territorial tracts, ISIS has gained control of infrastructures, weapons arsenals, energy sources, and bank funds, while at the same time mercilessly slaughtering members of other armies, ethnic groups, and tribes.[4] .the aim of ISIS is to establish a caliphate, or Islamic state, throughout Iraq and Syria. So far, ISIS has claimed control over northern Iraq and the northeastern region of Syria. The extremist group also targets people who follow religions other than Islam, particularly Christians and the Yazidi, an ethnic minority in Iraq[5] Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel believes the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group poses an “imminent threat” to the United States and is the most dangerous threat the country has faced in years. Combining sophistication, wealth and military might, IS goes “beyond anything we’ve seen,” including Al Qaeda, Hagel told reporters at the Pentagon . "They are an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it's in Iraq or anywhere else,"  Hagel said. When asked whether the Sunni Muslim group pose a threat to the U.S. comparable to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Hagel said IS is "as sophisticated and well-funded as any group we have seen".[6] Failed US policy toward the Syrian conflict plays a large role in the current Iraq crisis. As the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has shown, the Iraq problem cannot be understood in isolation from Syria. This means that the United

States cannot be effective in its engagement in Iraq unless it addresses both crises simultaneously.[7 ] As the United States once again ramps up involvement in Iraq, it makes sense to examine US interests and strategy while considering what might constitute realistic parameters for participation and outcome. Three factors should focus strategic thinking on the issue. First, our legacy in Iraq is poor. The dramatic inroads of Sunni Muslim extremists in Iraq have come despite, or perhaps because of, nearly 10 years of deep US involvement in the country, at a cost of thousands of Iraqi and American lives. Second, success in the current counterinsurgency mission is far from guaranteed. Even if the US-led coalition manages to defeat and disperse the Islamic State or ISIS militants, instability in Iraq and Syria is likely to continue. The splintering of Iraq into sectarian enclaves and even the eventual demise of the Iraqi nation-state remains a possibility. Third, America’s enthusiasm is low. It is unrealistic to expect another major commitment to nation-building in Iraq, let alone Syria.[8]

US interests in Iraq

The ongoing fragmentation in Iraq and Syria is the latest episode in a series of events that is shaking the foundations of today’s Middle East. The region has entered a fluid period of transition involving the growing power of non-state actors, including new Islamist extremist groups, at a time of increased competition for influence among the key countries in the region. For decades, the United States has grappled with formulating a Middle East strategy that advances both its interests and its values.[9] An important but often forgotten test for American foreign policy decisions is what is in our country's national interest. It's not about what is best for Iraq or Afghanistan or anyone else. The question is what's best for America. [10] Under President Barack Obama, the top U.S. priorities in the Middle East have included preventing a terrorist attack on the homeland; stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon; ending the Iraq War; maintaining a secure flow of energy from the region; and trying to broker Arab-Israeli peace. Also, violent Salafi jihadists such as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, seek to break down national borders and establish an Islamic state by force.[11] Beyond the special case of Israel, the area between the eastern Mediterranean and the Hindu Kush remains the current focus of U.S. policy. the United States has three principal interests there: to maintain a regional balance of power; to make certain that the

flow of oil is not interrupted; and to defeat the Islamist groups centered there that threaten the United States.[12] US priorities in Iraq and the wider Middle East start with an interest shared by most of the world: the free flow of Iraqi crude to world markets, since oil is such a crucial component of the global economy. Beyond energy considerations, Washington still hopes for a unified, stable, and democratic Iraq that is integrated in a peaceful way with its neighbors, and that cooperates against groups and ideologies hostile to America and its interests.[13]

The most important US interests in Iraq are listed below

1.Maintaining a unified and federal Iraq. 2. Supporting increases in production and export of oil resources. 3. Promoting Iraq’s strategic independence and regional integration. 4. Countering the re-emergence of al Qaida in Iraq (AQI). 5. Supporting Iraq’s democratic institutions and trajectory.[14] thus respect to us interests ,ISIS represents an ominous threat to U.S. security if it is allowed to establish itself permanently as a state or quasi state in the heart of the Middle East. It’s easy to bemoan the tragic American foreign-policy folly of the past eleven years that has destabilized this crucial region and paved the way for this horrendous turn of events. But that doesn’t obviate the reality that those events now pose a serious threat to regional stability and the safety of the West and America.[15]

Brief Background of ISIS

The Islamic State’s ideological and organizational roots lie in the forces built and led by the late Abu Musab al Zarqawi in Iraq from 2002 through 2006—Tawhid wal Jihad (Monotheism and Jihad) and Al Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers (aka Al Qaeda in Iraq, or AQ-I). Following Zarqawi’s death at the hands of U.S. forces in June 2006, AQ-I leaders repackaged the group as a coalition known as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).[16]

In October 2006, the Dawlat al-ʻIraq al-Islāmīyah or Islamic State of Iraq” (ISI) was created with Abu Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi as ISI’s leader and figurehead Emir, while the Egyptian Abu Ayyub al-Masri had actual control of the

group – in April 2010, both were killed in a joint operation conducted by US and Iraqi forces.[17] ISI lost its two top leaders in 2010 and was weakened, but not eliminated, by the time of the U.S. withdrawal in 2011. Under the leadership of Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim al Badri al Samarra’i (aka Abu Bakr al Baghdadi), ISI rebuilt its capabilities.[18] The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has thrived and mutated during the ongoing civil war in Syria and in the security vacuum that followed the departure of the last American forces from Iraq. The aim of ISIS is to create an Islamic state across Sunni areas of Iraq and in Syria.[19] The ISIS was formed in April 2013. It grew out of Al Qaeda in Iraq, created 10 years earlier, but has since been disavowed by the current Al Qaeda leadership. In its movement into Syria, ISIS has evolved into one of the main jihadist groups fighting against the Assad government and has reportedly surpassed Al Qaeda as the most dangerous jihadist organization.[20]. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi announced Caliphate on 29 June 2014, naming himself as caliph, and the group formally changed its name to “Islamic State” (IS).[21]

The Islamic State is a transnational Sunni Islamist insurgent and terrorist group that has expanded its control over areas of northwestern Iraq and northeastern Syria since 2013, threatening the security of both countries and drawing increased attention from the international community. The Islamic State has thrived in the disaffected Sunni Muslim-inhabited areas of Iraq and in the remote provinces of Syria torn by the civil war. The Islamic State’s tactics have drawn the ire of the international community, increasing U.S. attention on Iraq’s political problems and on the civil war in Syria.[22] ISIS’s military successes in Iraq and Syria demonstrate the changes occurring in the Middle East and provide motivation for radical elements to exploit these successes to expand the organization’s regional influence. Several factors are at the base of the success of ISIS and other jihadist organizations: a) the structural and functional weaknesses of Arab nation states; b) the organizations’ networked and decentralized structure, which makes it easier for them to operate, move, and sustain themselves in the region, and makes it more difficult for armies to confront; c) the ineffectiveness of the international community, first and foremost the United States, stemming from the lack of a solution and an unwillingness to become militarily involved; and d) the erosion of the United States’ image as a superpower and its ability to resolve regional problems.[23]

ISIS Geopolitical Implications

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a designated terror group, is in a position to overthrow the governments of Iraq and Syria and perhaps beyond, starting with Jordan. Straddling the Iraq-Syria frontier, it may both erase the nearly century-old border between these two colonial creations and end their existence as unitary states, thereby overturning the Middle Eastern political order as it emerged from World War I. Rightly does the U.S. government call ISIS "a threat to the entire region.[24] The West now finds itself in a position where Ba’athists and ISIS are wreaking havoc in two countries. The Sikes-Picot borders are fading, and there are multiple outcomes which could emerge from this crisis. Given the international community’s inaction in Syria and now Iraq, it is very likely that Iraq will splinter into ‘enclaves’. In such a scenario, Iraq could lose long-term de-facto control over territory to ISIS, and the US will utilize drones to combat ISIS much in the same way it has engaged al-Qaeda in Yemen or Pakistan. This could have dramatic effects on regional stability and world oil markets – something that could bring more calls for action.[25] It has become the consensus view in Washington that the militants are poised to bulldoze through America’s Middle East allies, destabilize global oil supplies and attack the U.S. homeland. The Islamic State represents “a clear and present danger” to the United States, wrote Gen. John Allen, a former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, one that affects “the region and potentially the world as we know it.” Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described the group as having “an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision.” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel characterized it as “an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else.” According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, 90 percent of Americans view the Islamic State as a serious threat to vital U.S. interests.[26] Generally speaking, the emergence of ISIS has posed a significant security threat to regional and international states alike; a threat which challenges the stability and territorial integrity of regional states as well as Western regional interests. As known from International Relations and particularly Realism literature, (mutual) security threats are one of the most important factors in the formation of different kinds of

alliances.[27] The Islamic State has created a vortex that has drawn in regional and global powers, redefining how they behave. The group's presence is both novel and impossible to ignore because it is a territorial entity. Nations have been forced to readjust their policies and relations with each other as a result. the group also has pressed against the boundaries of the Kurdish and Shiite regions, and it has sought to create a geographical link with its forces in Syria, changing Iraq's internal dynamic considerably. Where the Sunnis were once weak and dispersed, the Islamic State has now become a substantial force in the region north and west of Baghdad, posing a possible threat to Kurdish oil production and Iraqi governance.[28]the sudden and sweeping advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and its recent announcement of an Islamic caliphate have thrown the entire Middle East region into a cloud of uncertainty. Images of ISIS forces dismantling the Sykes-Picot border posts between Syria and Iraq have cast an additional veil of doubt over prospects for long-term peace and stability. And while it remains unclear what the concrete consequences of the announcement of a caliphate will be, there are signs that ISIS’ actions are already contributing to a shift in the region’s dynamics.[29] The rebellion of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) in Iraq might be the start of a regional war what ISIS is doing in Iraq is much more fundamental and much more dangerous. It is an extreme copy of Europe’s religious wars of the sixteenth century. ISIS does not only destroy borders, It kills everyone and everything that doesn’t fit into its jihadist ideology. the result of the current conflict might not only be the disintegration of Iraq into three new states. A much bigger problem is that Syria, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan might be forced into a regional politico-religious war. The stunning success of ISIS might convince other extremist groups, now mostly linked to al-Qaeda, to follow its example and found versions of ISIS across the region and beyond. Iraq might be just a preview of what to expect.[30]

Baghdadi’s declaration of the caliphate may have wide reaching consequences for both the Middle East and the world. The Islamic state, which emerged on 29 June 2014, may herald a new order. This Caliphate does not have a constitution, but follows the Koran. It has combat hardened holy warriors and it is taking root in northern Iraq and northeastern Syria. This nation, reportedly for all Muslims, seeks to break down borders. Today’s Islamic State claims to control vast swaths of land

in Iraq and Syria, as well as a number of major towns and cities. In addition, ISIS has acquired large quantities of US-made weapons and vehicles, including armored personnel carriers, tanks and artillery that were abandoned by Iraqi Army units in their withdrawal south.[31] The political borders of the modern Middle East, constructed in the secret "Sykes-Picot" agreement between Britain and France in 1916, are perceived by many radical Islamists as a European attempt to divide the Muslim world. Bin Laden stated on several occasions that "it's incumbent on all the Muslims to ignore these borders and boundaries, which the infidels have laid down between Muslim lands... for the sole purpose of dividing us." But while bin Laden's al-Qaeda may have lamented the existence of the borders of the Middle East, it nonetheless waged its jihad against the United States within the framework of the modern world system. In contrast, ISIS literally bulldozed the border between Syria and Iraq and aims to breaks other political boundaries in the region, matching existing salafi-jihadi rhetoric with concrete and immediate action. The ambition to redraw the map of the modern Middle East and establish a modern day caliphate, coupled with an amazing array of military victories over Iraqi government forces and others, largely accounts for ISIS' appeal to many radical Islamists and its ability to attract significant numbers of foreign fighters.[32]

Expansion of Islamic terrorist activities around the world

Go back to the weeks and months immediately following the Al Qaeda attack on the American homeland on September 11, 2001 Suppose that Al Qaeda had somehow managed to become a major military power in the Middle East. Suppose further that Al Qaeda had established a significant presence in Syria and conquered strategic territories in Iraq, threatening to obliterate peoples and religious sensibilities it despised. Now suppose it had set up what it called a “caliphate” to rule over that territory, demanded fealty from all Muslims everywhere and established itself as an enemy of America.[33] ISIS is already a threat to the United States. ISIS is not only dangerous in a regional context because it is overthrowing modern state boundaries in ways that incur massive ethno-sectarian killing and cleansing. ISIS is also a global jihadist organization that shares al-Qaeda’s ideology, such that its progress drives towards a post-state and apocalyptic vision

that involves the destruction of the modern state system. ISIS already threatens to escalate violence between states in the Middle East that have been fighting proxy wars in Syria for several years such that ISIS military operations may cascade into a broader regional conflict. ISIS is now a direct threat to neighboring states in the Middle East, and ISIS is broadcasting the intent to attack Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the West, The threat of attacks against the U.S. is present.[34] Since early January 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has steadily accumulated large swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq through tactical militant advances. Yet, ISIL militants are not just expanding in terms of territory gained in Iraq and Syria; they also possess a growing number of pledged allegiances throughout regions in Asia and North Africa. Along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, there has been a surge of support for ISIL from groups who were previously affiliated with Al Qaeda or the Taliban. First, the Tehreek-e-Khilafat group, a small branch of the Pakistani Taliban, shifted its allegiances to ISIL in early July with the public promise to extend the caliphate to South Asia, Other splinters such as Jamaatul Ahrar, and at least six key TTP leaders, followed suit by joining ISIL in the fall. [35] The IS puts down roots wherever chaos reigns, where governments are weakest and where disillusionment over the Arab Spring is deepest. , terror groups that had thus far operated locally have quickly begun siding with the extremists from IS. In September, it was the Algerian group Soldiers of the Caliphate that threw in its lot with Islamic State. As though following a script, the group immediately beheaded a French mountaineer and uploaded the video to the Internet. In October, the "caliphate" was proclaimed in Darna. And the strongest Egyptian terrorist group likewise announced its affiliation with IS. Several inconsequential groups have also pledged loyalty to Islamic State, while others have gone so far as to announce their support for the group, such as Boko Haram in Nigeria, Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines and the Taliban in Pakistan. All of them are seeking to benefit from the attraction and the brutal reputation of the Islamic State, in addition to the weapons, money and fighters that are easier to assemble using the latest label of horror.[36] In Yemen, the rapid expansion of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant is encouraging extremist Sunni militants to align their interests more closely with ISIL and, consequently, it is further disintegrating the already corroded security situation in the country. Similarly, fonts of ISIL support are springing up in North African regions and creating extremely volatile security environments. Jund al-Khalifah in Egypt and Algeria aligned itself with ISIL’s mandate in

October , The militant group Ansar al-Shariah in Libya held a parade with ISIL flags in the territory it controls in Derna and Benghazi. Fighters from the Tunisian branch of Ansar al-Shariah have also been traveling to aid ISIL forces in Syria for several months. In November, the Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis group swore allegiance to ISIL and declared the Sinai Province of the Islamic State Caliphate. Though Boko Haram in Nigeria is often scattered in their message and organization, some support has been voiced by the group in favour of the ISIL styled caliphate.[37] The rise of violence from terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria poses a threat to global security, Asean warned, as two of its member states highlighted the potential for Islamic State activities in the region. “Asean denounces all acts of destruction, violence and terror in all its forms,” the Association of South East Asian Nations said in a statement published on its website Sept 27. Malaysian Defense Minister Hishammuddin Hussein raised the possibility of an Islamic State strike in the region.[38] While world leaders have spent the last few months focusing on how to contain ISIS in Iraq and Syria, there are some fears the Sunni jihadist group may be exporting its violent tactics to foreign countries. ISIS has become notorious for its use of online media to stoke and recruit new members. In addition to videos featuring the beheadings of two U.S. journalists and a British aid worker, the group recently released "Flames of War," a Hollywood-style trailer that promises the fight between ISIS and the West "has just begun."As more countries have signed up to fight ISIS in the Middle East, the group has taken to social media to spur sympathizers worldwide to carry out foreign attacks on its behalf.[39] Although the US is now working with Gulf partners to halt support for extremist groups, it is the weakness of US policy that helped such groups to thrive. When the US role diminishes, that space is left for regional actors to expand their scope of influence, and until very recently, extremist groups other than ISIL, like Jabhat al-Nusra, have been the method of choice for both Qatar and Saudi Arabia in trying to eradicate the Assad regime. The lack of a decisive foreign policy on Syria has also allowed the conflict to drag on, granting ISIL time to grow and expand. All this has meant that the US has made itself less relevant in the region.[40]

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is now active in southern Afghanistan, according to Afghan officials, who say the extremist group are now fighting the Taliban and recruiting new members in the country. Last November, ISIS’ leader,

Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi’s ‘Volcanoes of Jihad’ speech appeared online. In it he said: “We give you [Muslims] good news by announcing the expansion of the Islamic state to new lands, to the lands of Al-Haramayn [Saudi Arabia] and Yemen...to Egypt, Libya, and Algeria”, clearly stating ISIS’ intentions to expand beyond Iraq and Syria where it primarily operates. Organizations in as many as 11 countries have already reportedly pledged fealty to ISIS, including jihadists in Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Libya and even as far as the Philippines.[41]

religious, ethnic tensions and division of Iraq

More than a decade after the American invasion, Iraq is facing the prospect of a new civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. In contrast to 2006 and 2007, when fighting between the two religious groups claimed thousands of lives, the Americans are no longer there to intervene though Washington has, in recent days, beefed up its presence in the Persian Gulf and dozens of troops are now in Baghdad to defend the US Embassy there. the ISIS wishes to eliminate the borders as currently drawn. The group posted images online of members tearing down border fortifications between Syria and Iraq. Such a conflict could ultimately result in the current territory of Syria and Iraq being divided into a Kurdish, a Sunni and a Shiite state.[42]

It seems that Iraq is already disintegrating into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish areas.[43]The map has changed, After the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) took over Mosul, and the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) annexed Kirkuk to its autonomous region, there are now three Iraqs. And there are many grounds for doubting whether it is possible, through diplomacy or military action, to bring them back together.[44] Escalating sectarian tensions, along with ISIS’ takeover of Sunni areas, have made the situation even more complex. It is time for both Iraqis and the whole world to end the farce called Iraq. Otherwise, innocent Iraqi civilians will pay the price for clinging onto a century-old mistake of a united country. dividing Iraq along sectarian lines would allow all groups to exist autonomously and to live in peace with their neighbors. The post-2003 history of Iraq proves that ISIS’ success in Sunni areas is a direct outcome of Sunni Arabs’ marginalization from the political process and their victimization by a sectarian Iraqi army. If Sunnis were in charge of their own fate, they would repel extremists

from their territory, as they did through the US surge policy. The fact that ISIS is not alone in the fight against the Iraqi government further supports the above claim. However, Sunnis need to be empowered before it is too late. Otherwise, ISIS’ hold in Sunni-majority areas will be strengthened, leading to further violence in an already volatile Middle East.[45]

Iraq has disintegrated, little is exchanged between its three great communities – Shia, Sunni and Kurd – except gunfire. The outside world hopes that a more inclusive government will change this but it is probably too late. The main victor in the new war in Iraq is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) which wants to kill Shia rather than negotiate with them. Iraq is facing a civil war that could be as bloody as anything that we have seen in Syria and could go on for years. The Sunnis have ceded a commanding role to a movement that sees itself as divinely inspired and whose agenda involves endless and unwinnable wars against apostates and heretics.[46] The ISI’s reign of terror led to the purge of Christians and Assyrians from Iraq. Shias and Sunnis grew segregated geographically, intermarriage rates dropped and political discourse became overtly sectarian. As Maliki and his Shia alliance struggled to form a new government, the ISIL began to capitalize on Sunni disenfranchisement to secure a wider territory, declaring a caliphate under the leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. It has since rebranded itself as simply the Islamic State (IS), occupying a territory that transcends the borders of Iraq and Syria.[47]

ISIS and its extremist Sunni precursors have largely targeted Shabaks and Turkmen who are Shia, not Sunni. ISIS has also targeted Iraqi police and security forces, many of them Shia, ordering them to “repent” at designated mosques in Mosul and the nearby city of Tal Afar for following state law rather than Sharia (Islamic law), or face death. It is the latest of several armed extremist Sunni groups to have systematically killed and threatened Iraq’s Chaldo-Assyrian Christians, Shia Shabaks and Turkmen, and Yazidis, labeling them crusaders, heretics, and devil-worshipers, respectively.[48] The ISIS takeover of the northern Iraqi city of Mosul is neither just a local problem for Iraq nor merely a regional problem for the Middle East. It is a truly international problem, with potentially catastrophic global security implications if not handled carefully by Western and Middle Eastern stakeholders. The crisis increases the likelihood that Iraq could descend

into a protracted civil war and fragment, especially as Kurdistan has managed to defend itself against ISIS while the central Iraqi state has not, and as tensions between Sunnis and Shias continue to escalate. The crisis is also pressurizing al-Qaeda, which risks being overshadowed by ISIS, to reassert itself as a powerful jihadist group.[49] Iraq and Syria can be divided up, but they cannot be divided up cleanly and peacefully because too many minorities, like the million or more Sunni in Baghdad, are on the wrong side of any conceivable dividing line. At best, Syria and Iraq face years of intermittent civil war; at worst, the division of these countries will be like the partition of India in 1947 when massacre and fear of massacre established new demographic frontiers.[50]  ISIS military advances directly threaten Iraq's Shiite-dominated, pro-Iran regime. Tehran cannot allow it to go under; accordingly, Iranian forces have already helped retake Tikrit and greater Iranian involvement has been promised. This points to a replica of the ethnic lines in Syria's civil war, with Turkish-backed Sunni jihadis rebelling against an Iranian-backed Shiite-oriented central government. [51]

ISIS &threat of energy security

Amid the chaos of the conquest of a large part of Iraq by the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS, the Caliphate, or the Islamic State), there has been a great deal of attention paid to the political, military, social, humanitarian, and even religious implications. However, there has been little discussion of the economic impacts beyond a rise in the price of oil and drop of Iraqi oil exports.[52]

The relentless march of Islamist militants south through Iraq is taking a toll on the country’s oil infrastructure, forcing the closure of Iraq’s largest oil refinery and sparking fears of an attack on Baghdad itself. The real problem posed by the offensive unleashed by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) is not what happens to Iraqi oil production this week, but whether OPEC’s second-biggest producer can meet outsized production-growth expectations for the rest of the decade. If it can’t, energy analysts say, the world’s inexorable thirst for oil could soon collide with limited growth in supply, leading to higher prices and lower economic growth in the United States and around the world.[53]

During the past few months, Iraq has been destabilized anew by the rapid incursion of a Sunni militant group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The risk of a significant disruption to Iraqi production could have a significant impact for stocks in the energy sector, and beyond.[54] Iraq is widely considered the most important country in OPEC going forward. Iraq will account for 60 percent of the growth of OPEC’s output up until 2019, by which date Iraq’s output would have risen by 1.28 million barrels per day. The ISIS juggernaut could expand with attacks on the oil-rich southeast. If successful, these could cut off revenues to the central government from the oil production there, which could further erode its authority and ability to govern. Losing Iraq’s oil would be a disaster for the region and the world. A decline by one third in Iraq’s output would evaporate OPEC’s spare productive capacity, and would force developed nations to tap into their strategic reserves.[55] While turmoil in oil-producing countries is nothing new, this situation is different for several reasons. First, the vulnerability of the global economy to disruptions varies over time, and there is currently very little excess global oil production capacity to provide a cushion in the event that Iraq’s exports are cut off. During the past few years, Iraq has become the second-largest oil producer in OPEC, partly because of international sanctions against Iran and instability in Libya. In June 2014, Iraq produced 3.17 million barrels per day, while OPEC’s effective spare capacity is estimated at 3.25 million barrels per day. If Iraq’s production were to stop, there would be no spare capacity, and rising oil prices likely would slow global growth and energy consumption. Longer term, Iraq has been expected to account for roughly 60% of the growth in OPEC production capacity until 2019 , and the threat of disruption calls into question the nation’s ability to meet those production targets. While no one can predict how the conflict will end, the possibility exists that Iraq’s production will halt or slow, causing a spike in oil prices that impairs the global economy.[56] The conflict in Iraq has created a threat to future oil production that could drive up prices, the developed countries’ energy watchdog has warned. Fatih Birol, chief economist of the Paris-based International Energy Agency, said the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or Isis, was causing the agency to reassess its expectations of crude supplies because the Islamist group was deterring investment in production. Iraq has the world’s third-largest reserves of conventional oil – a category that excludes higher-cost resources such as oil sands and shale – at 150bn barrels, according to the BP Statistical Review. The largest such reserves are in Saudi Arabia and Iran.

However, the rapid ascent of Isis has raised questions about the country’s security, adding to international companies’ concerns about regulatory, environmental and budget problems.[57] According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), Iraq may account for nearly half of anticipated growth in global oil output over the current decade, with revenues approaching $200 billion per year. In short, Iraq’s hydrocarbon sector is vital to U.S. interests in the region, and its development is essential to Iraq’s long-term stability.[58]

response to ISISISIS’s advances have made Iraq and Syria part of the same battlefield, erasing the international border and turning the regional struggles for power into a substantial threat to international peace and security.[59] Washington’s strategy is doomed to fail because fundamentalism, radicalization and terrorism are inherently sociological problems that can be easily exacerbated but never resolved by military means. In fact, the most effective action the international community can take in response to ISIL is to stop feeding the beast. This would mean cutting aid to non state actors in Syria and the broader region. It also entails Western powers’ revisiting the level and types of cooperation afforded to Israel and Middle Eastern dictators and monarchs in order to reduce complicity in their abuses — depriving militants of new fodder for propaganda. Measures to restrict the flow of fighters into the region should be joined by policies to cut trafficking of illicit funds and (especially) arms.[60]

The United States to counter ISIS should implement three below pillars:

• Building and managing an international coalition to defeat ISIS and stabilize the region

• Increasing support for Iraq’s political, economic, and security transitions, in particular with a revived U.S.-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement

• Initiating a more concerted effort to end Syria’s civil war and support the creation of a transitional government.[61]

U.S. airstrikes in Iraq against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, have been an important step to contain the rise of the extremist group, respond to immediate threats to U.S. citizens in Iraq, and prevent possible acts of genocide. These airstrikes enabled Iraqis to resist ISIS and bought time for the Iraqi government to begin building a more inclusive administration under a new prime minister, Haider al-Abadi. U.S. military action needs to be just one part of a long-term multinational political and security strategy in the region. The new strategy should aim to contain and degrade ISIS and enable regional partners to continue to build the tools needed to defeat ISIS’s movement with international support.[62]

The United States is treating ISIS like a country instead of an idea taking hold of people across territories around the globe. This disconnect between the US’s strategy and the reality of the battle it’s fighting will lead, and has led, to the ultimate failure of America’s military objectives in the Middle East. The US still does not understand the nature of guerilla warfare. America’s military is well-equipped for state enemies with clear borders and objectives. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States would destroy Taliban or al Qaeda leadership, only to make "no tactical gains."However, territory is not at the heart of ISIS’s mission; influence is. If the wars of the past decade have proved anything, it’s that the United States cannot beat back ideas with bombs. during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, American policy makers lacked clear purpose. Just like when President Bush called for a "War on Terror," there are no clearly defined goals for the ISIS mission. This is an invitation for scope creep. during the wars with Afghanistan and Iraq, policy makers relied heavily on the US’s relative power to justify recommended foreign policy. Those same financial, cultural, and geographical hurdles still exist today. When confronting ISIS, President Obama has limited the military to airstrikes only. While airstrikes are particularly good at destroying a state’s economy, has a weak history of toppling states let alone stateless institutions such as ISIS.[63]

The seriousness of the threat calls for a cohesive and comprehensive U.S. foreign policy that takes into account the sacrifice that likely will be needed to address this crisis. A number of steps, all interrelated, should be pursued. First, the president needs to level with the American people in a way that he has thus far avoided. He must identify Islamist radicalism as the country’s primary enemy and explain why

and how its rise in the Middle East would pose a serious threat to the American homeland far beyond any threat ever posed by Al Qaeda. Second, he should clear the decks diplomatically, extricating the country from foreign controversies that lack strategic significance and serve to divert attention and resources from the immediate ISIS threat. Third, the United States should pursue a diplomatic approach in the Middle East that focuses on the ISIS threat above all other considerations. That means getting tough with states-Saudi Arabia, for example, and other Sunni Gulf nations-that harbor radical elements and seem bent on exploiting the ISIS rise to thwart their Shia enemies in Iraq and Iran.  fourth, the United States should seek to become once again a leader of the West and operate as the core state of its civilization. All of Western civilization has a stake in the outcome of this confrontation. Finally, once the decks have been cleared and a policy devised that is both coherent and comprehensive, the United States must move not just to thwart the ISIS menace, but to destroy it. It isn’t clear what that will take, but whatever it takes must be brought to bear.[64] In the face of these setbacks, the United States should devote significantly more resources both toward fighting ISIS and addressing the conditions in Iraq and Syria that the group exploited in its rise to power.  In specific, the United States and its allies should:

Increase the number of airstrikes

the U.S.-led air campaign against ISIS is far less intense than previous efforts.  For instance, while the U.S.-led coalition averaged seven air strikes per day against ISIS over the past two months, the 2001 mission against the Taliban averaged 86 strikes per day, and the 1999 mission in Kosovo averaged 138. 

Deploy U.S. personnel to facilitate an expanded air campaign

The relative paucity of U.S. airstrikes in Operation Inherent Resolve is due in no small part to the lack of American personnel on the ground to help direct airstrikes.  U.S. forward air controllers, paired with front-line partners in Iraq and Syria, could direct far more effective and accelerated air strikes against ISIS forces. 

Establish “safe zones” along the Syria-Turkey border

Foreign policy experts and congressional leaders have long called for safe zones in northern Syria, which would both save countless civilian lives and facilitate the growth of moderate opposition forces. 

Provide arms now to moderate Syrian opposition groups such as the Free Syrian Army (FSA)

The FSA and other mainstream opposition groups have an urgent need for weapons. .”  Indeed, the United States has provided only a few dozen older-model anti-tank weapons to moderate rebel groups.  Without sufficient support now, ISIS and other extremist groups will continue to gain power and influence in Syria. 

Promote reconciliation between Baghdad and Iraqi Sunnis

The Sunni Arabs of Iraq and Syria are the decisive human terrain in this conflict, with whom the United States must work to defeat ISIS. Accelerate and expand American weapons shipments to the Iraqi Kurds. The Kurds are fighting for their survival, but have so far received minimal assistance. [65]

conclusionThe Middle East is a vital area of U.S. foreign policy since the collapse of soviet union. on June 2014, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), later known as the Islamic State (IS),  captured much parts of northern Iraq. the emergence of ISIS has created a significant security threat to regional and international states and this group threatens stability and territorial integrity of regional states as well as western regional interests ,the Islamic state poses a serious challenge to the middle east. At present the Islamic “Caliphate” governing parts of Iraq and Syria and is becoming one of the most important threats to American national interests in Iraq. therefore It is necessary for the U.S. to consider ways to defeat ISIS. Islamic state at now challenges U.S interests in Iraq such as: a unified and federal Iraq,

production and export of oil resources, Iraq’s strategic independence and regional integration. furthermore the rise of ISIS has encouraged other Islamic terrorist organizations like, the Tehreek-e-Khilafat group, a small branch of the Pakistani Taliban, Jamaatul Ahrar in South Asia, Ansar al-Shariah in Libya , Jund al-Khalifah in Egypt , Boko Haram in Nigeria and etc to pledge allegiances to ISIS ,thus this terrorist organizations obedience of ISIS will create a significant threat to U.S interests all over the world. along with advances of this group in Iraq and Syria and seizure more lands in these two countries, ISIS captured some oil fields and began to smuggle oil to earn much more money for its Islamic state objectives. this ISIS action will threaten oil production and investment in this section of Iraqi economy, so this act seriously threatens Iraqi government and U.S energy security interests in Iraq. Islamic state invasion to Iraq that caused killings and massacres of Iraqi minorities such as yazidi Kurds , shia Turkmens, and Christians will decrease national unity and at the end will lead to demise of Iraq and ignition ethno-sectarian war in the country and around the middle east.

references

1 - Curwin. Daniel, "ISIS in Iraq: A Regional Crisis With Global Implications" 30th June ,2014, Policy Brief, Issue 6, No. 2. http://www.hscentre.org/policy-unit/isis-iraq-regional-crisis-global-implications2- Kelly. Andrew," US policy options for Iraq and the ISIS threat," December,12,2014.http://www.ia-forum.org/content/ViewInternalDocument.cfm?ContentID=8197

3 - Katulis .Brian, Lang .Hardin, and Singh .Vikram ,"Defeating ISIS An Integrated Strategy to Advance Middle East Stability," September 10, 2014, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/report/2014/09/10/96739/defeating-isis-an-integrated-strategy-to-advance-middle-east-stability4 - Michael. Kobi , Dekel. Udi," ISIS Success in Iraq and Syria: Strategic Ramifications," June 24, 2014, http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538&articleid=7112

5 - Wilson. Tara," U.S. Reveals New Strategy Against ISIS,"19 sep 2014, http://www.borgenproject.org/u-s-reveals-new-strategy-isis

6 - Westcott. Lucy," Hagel: Islamic State the Biggest Threat to the U.S. Since Al Qaeda,"  8,2014 http://www.newsweek.com/Hagel-Islamic-state-biggest-threat-Us-al-Qaeda-266273

7 - khatib. lina," US foreign policy on Syria and Iraq :between words and actions," June 29,2014 al jazeera. http://www.carnegie-mec.org/publications/?fa=56034

8- Krane. Jim," Back to Iraq? US Interests and Opportunities in an Environment of Reduced Expectations," Wallace S. Wilson Fellow for Energy Studies, rice university's baker institute for public policy //issue brief//10.13.14, http:// www.bakerinstitute.org/issue-briefs

9 - Katulis. Brian, Juul. Peter," Middle East Policy at a Time of Regional Fragmentation and Competition, Lessons for U.S. Policy from the Past Three Years," June 2014, Center for American Progress. Washington DC. http://www .American progres.org June 23,201410 - McFarland, K.T. ,"What's America's interest in Iraq now?," June 23, 2014, http://www.beaufortobserver.net/articles-news-and-commentary-c-2014-06-23-273360.112112-whats-americas-interest-in-iraq-now.html

11 - K. Brian, J. Peter, op.cit.

12 - Strategic Reversal: The United States, Iran, and the Middle East, November 24, 2014, http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/strategic-reversal-united-states-iran-and-middle-east#axzz3MiSOurox13 - K. Jim, op.cit

14 - McGurk. Brett, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iraq and Iran, Near Eastern Affairs House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa Washington, DC ,"U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Iraq," November 13, 2013 http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/217546.htm

15 - Merry. w, Robert," America must destroy ISIS now; or, this ,cancer ,will spread ,ultimately threatening the U.S .and the west," august 13,2014,http://www.nationlinterests.org/feature/america-must-destroy-isis-11073

16 - Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs Christopher M. Blanchard Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs Carla E. Humud Analyst in Middle Eastern and African Affairs Rhoda Margesson Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy Alex Tiersky Analyst in Foreign Affairs Matthew C. Weed Analyst in Foreign Policy Legislation," The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy," November 12, 2014, Congressional

Research Service 7-5700 http://www.crs.gov R43612 p.217 - Abdullah. Anas, "ISIS: A Geopolitical Game Changer?," , July 17,2014, http://www.pakistankakhudahafiz.com/security-strategy/isis-geopolitical-game-changer18 - K. Katzman, op.cit.19 - Lister. Tim, "ISIS: The first terror group to build an Islamic state?," June 13, 2014.http://www.edition.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis20 - Taillon. Paul DEB.," shock and awe: the rise of the Islamic state& implications for the middle east," July 31,2014. http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/shock-awe-rise-islamic-state-implications-middle-east

21 - A. Anas, op.cit.22 - K. Katzman, op.cit. 23 - M. Kobi , D. Udi,op.cit.

24-Daniel .Pipes," ISIS Rampages, the Middle East ShakesThe situation is dangerous, but Western powers should stay out, " June 12, 2014. http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/5307/isis-rampages-the-middle-east-shakes

25 - C. Daniel, op.cit. 26- Mardini. Ramzy," The Islamic State threat is overstated," September 12,2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-islamic-state-threat-is-overstated/2014/09/12/acbbebb2-33ad-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html

27 - Tziarras . Zenonas ,"The Geopolitical Impact of ISIS: Actors, Factors, and Balances of Power in the Middle East," September 24, 2014.http://www.thegwpost.com/2014/09/24/the-geopolitical-impact-of-isis-actors-factors-and-balances-of-power-in-the-middle-east

28 - Friedman. George ," The Islamic State Reshapes the Middle East," November 25,2014 .http://www.stratford.com/weekly/islamic -state-reshapes-middle -east? topics=288#AXZZ3MISOUROX29 - Omar el okdah, srour.Ramy, "ISIS Advance Creates Chaos and Opportunity for Regional Powers, "July 10,2014,http://www. theglobalobservatory.org/2014/07/isis-advance-chaos-opportunity-regional-powers

30 - Dempsey. Judy," is ISIS in Iraq bigger than Putin in Ukraine?, "JUNE 18, 2014, http://www.carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceuope/?fa=5594031 - T. Paul, op.cit

32 - Hoffman. Adam and Hoffman. Rachel," ISIS and the implementation of Islamic rule,"27 august 2014.http://www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/religion-geopolitics/commentaries/opinion/isis-and-implementation-islamic-rule

33 - M. w, Robert, op.cit.

34 - Lewis .D. Jessica," The Islamic State: a Counter- Strategy for a Counter-State, July, 2014. http://www.understandingwar.org/report/islamic-state-counter-strategy-counter-state35 -Hawco. Melissa ," A New Model of Terrorism: The Rapidly Expanding Caliphate of ISIL,"   17 December 2014, https://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/entry/a-new-model-of-terrorism-the-rapidly-expanding-caliphate-of-isil36 -bKeilberth. Mirco, Juliane von Mittelstaedt and Reuter. Christoph," The 'Caliphate's' Colonies: Islamic State's Gradual Expansion into North Africa," November 18, 2014, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-expanding-into-north-africa-a-1003525.html37 -H. Melissa , op.cit.

38 - Tan .Andrea ,"Asean Says Iraq, Syria Terrorist Groups Are Global Threat," Sep 28, 2014, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-28/asean-says-iraq-syria-terrorist-groups-are-global-threat.html39 - Mayer .Andre," Is ISIS violence expanding worldwide?," Sep 18, 2014 ,http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/1.277041340 - kh. lina,op.cit.41 - Metzger .m "ISIS Have Made Their Move Into Afghanistan Says Army General"1/13/2015. http://www.newsweek.com/isis-have-made-their-move-afghanistan-says-army-general-299085

42 - Dieter Bednarz, Ullrich Fichtner, Katrin Kuntz, Christoph Reuter and Mathieu von Rohr," A Country Implodes: ISIS Pushes Iraq to the Brink," Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan, June 17, 2014, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-implosion-of-iraq-at-the-hands-of-the-isis-islamists-a-975541.html43 - Parker B. Clifton," ISIS terrorist group is a potential threat to U.S.," Stanford scholar says, Stanford Report, July 10, 2014,www. http://www.news.stanford.edu/news/2014/july/crenshaw-isis-threat-071014.html44 - Saghieh. Hazem,"Iraq-Syria: roots of disintegration," 31 July 2014, https://www.opendemocracy.net/hazem-saghieh/iraqsyria-roots-of-disintegration 45 - Waladbagi .Muhammad," The Disintegration of Iraq: End of a Century-Old Curse, "June,20,2014,http://www.fairobserver.com/region/middle_east_north_africa/the-disintegration-of-iraq-end-of-a-century-old-curse-8710546 - Cockburn. Patrick," Crisis in the Middle East: The end of a country, and the start of a new dark age," 10 August 2014, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/crisis-in-the-middle-east-the-end-of-a-country-and-the-start-of-a-new-dark-age-9659379.html47 -al-Gharbi. Musa," The myth and reality of sectarianism in Iraq,  , August 18, 2014,http://www.america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/8/iraq-sectarianismshiassunniskurdsnourialmalaki.html 48 -human rights watch ,"Iraq: ISIS Abducting, Killing, Expelling Minorities," July 19,2014,http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/19/iraq-isis-abducting-killing-expelling-minotoites49 - D. Judy, op.cit.50 -C. Patrick, op.cit. 51 -P .Daniel , op.cit.52 -Gunter. R Frank, "the ISIL invasion of Iraq: economic winners and losers," foreign policy research institute , July 2014,http://www.fpri.org/articles/2014/07/isil-invasion-iraq-economic-winners-and-losers 53 -Johnson. Keith," ISIS and the Long-Term Threat to Iraqi Oil," June 17,2014.http://www.foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/17/ISIS-and-the-long-term-threat-to-iraq-oil54 - Dowd. John," ISIS, Iraq And Oil Prices: What Investors Should Know,",10/14/2014,http://www.forbes.com/sites/fidelity/2014/10/14/isis-iraq-and-oil-prices-what-investors-should-know 55 - Chakrani. Hassan," ISIS poses a threat to Iraq’s economy," June 28, 2014, http://www.english.al-akhbar.com/node/2036256- D. John, op.cit57 - Crooks. Ed and Daragahi .Borzou ," Isis threatens future oil supplies, warns IEA," November 26, 2014, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2b6df86e-7559-11e4-a1a9-00144feabdc0.html58 -M. Brett, op.cit.59 - K .Brian, L .Hardin, and S .Vikram ,op.cit.60 - al-Gharbi. Musa," By hyping ISIL threat, US is falling into group’s trap," September 30, 2014, http://www.america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/islamic-state-unitedstatessyriairaqmilitaryintervention.html

61 - K .Brian, L .Hardin, and S .Vikram ,op.cit.62 -ibid.63 - Burger. Rachel," ISIS Is Spreading Because the US Is Repeating Its Mistakes," October 10, 2014 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2014/10/10/isis-is-spreading-because-the-us-is-repeating-its-mistakes64 - M .w, Robert, op.cit.65 - Griffin J. Christopher, Moore. Evan ,"FPI bulletin :next steps in the war against ISIS October 28, 2014, http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/content/fpi-bulletin-next-steps-war-against-isis