The ISIS dilemma | היום

The ISIS dilemma

The recent series of victories by the Islamic State group (ISIS) in the wilderness of Iraq and Syria, which has enabled it to establish an Islamic caliphate, headed by Caliph Ibrahim (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) over an area 10 times the size of Israel, is one of the most significant developments to take place in the Middle East in decades.

Unique circumstances have come together in favor of ISIS. The collapse of Iraq following the U.S. invasion in 2003 as well as the Syrian civil war of recent years have left both countries weak and vulnerable, and unfortunately, the Iraqi and Syrian regimes were the only ones that could have eliminated this phenomenon.

The Islamic State group has undergone a transformation turning it from a band of delusional individuals to a force to be reckoned with, perhaps an actual state in the making. These prospects have increased the threat ISIS poses to the world at large.

For example, ISIS has completely splintered off from al-Qaida, turning into an independent and ruthless organization. The best illustration of the group's confidence and its leader's delusions of grandeur is the declaration of the Islamic caliphate in Iraq.

The Islamic State group has been able somehow to absorb the various small opposition groups that have been fighting each other in western Iraq, and it has also been able to absorb some of the resistance groups operating in eastern Syria, creating -- for the first time -- a situation where one rebel group has actual, sole control on the ground in both countries.

ISIS has also been able to form a government mechanism, crude and unsavory as it may be, in the areas it has overrun, and has therefore presented, for the first time, military and civilian alternatives to the Iraqi and Syrian regimes.

One could argue that these areas of Iraq and Syria are sparsely inhabited to begin with, and that those living there are usually nomadic tribes or the residents of remote villages, who despise the Shiite government in Baghdad and the Assad regime in Damascus and can therefore be easily recruited for the cause of jihad.

The Islamic State seems to be facing several dilemmas. Does it work to establish its hold on the areas it has overrun? Should those areas be cleansed of those who opposes ISIS and of the minority groups the organization views as heretics? Should it invest time in establishing actual government and economic mechanisms for the state it envisions, or should all efforts be geared toward forming an army to protect its achievements so far?

Alternatively, should the Islamic State group set its sights on the Shiite areas of southern Iraq or on central Syria, and maybe even on Turkey or Jordan-

The dangers of ISIS overextending itself are clear, as are the dangers of a potential clash with hostile Shiite or Kurdish populations, or with stable and relatively strong nations like Turkey or Jordan.

On the other hand, the Islamic State group's philosophy is that of jihad and expansion, and the state it seeks to establish -- and that state's potential military -- would be formed on the principles of war and conquest.

ISIS is unlikely to ever relinquish jihad, but it is likely to keep its efforts focused on Iraq and Syria, whose crumbling regimes lend it maneuvering room. Barring a true window of opportunity, the organization is likely to leave Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia alone; but should their regimes be undermined in any way, it would surely try and take advantage of the situation.

The Islamic State group may attempt the occasional threat against Israel as well, but until ISIS actually closes in on the Israel-Syrian border, Israel's ability to launch a preemptive strike remains limited.

ISIS is not without its limitations, and it may have already reached its limit, but the bad news is that in all likelihood, the Islamic State group is here to stay.

No one -- not in Damascus and not in Baghdad -- has the necessary power to eliminate the threat, and unless ISIS tries to carry out a terror attack on U.S. soil, it is hard to imagine that Washington would be willing to fight it with anything more than the occasional airstrike, such as it has already mounted.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו

כדאי להכיר