IS everywhere

Since its occupation of Mosul and parts of northern Iraq last June, Islamic State (IS) has emerged as the most dreadful terrorist organisation in the world. Al Qaeda and its ilk seem to have receded into the background. Now IS is not only the most organised terror outfit but is also the most powerful insurgent group in the world. The IS proclamation of statehood in territories it has occupied across Syria and Iraq (larger than the area of France) is only comparable to what the Taliban did in 1996 in Afghanistan, in modern history. However, far from being a Sunni jihadist group, IS is yet another creation of botched US foreign policy in the Muslim world. Attributing anything Islamic to the group is as ridiculous as attributing US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and illegal detention of illegal combatants at Guantanamo Bay to Christianity. Nevertheless, IS is an enigma, a by-product of the Saudi-Iranian proxy war and, last but not least, an integral part of Washington’s false flag operation in the Muslim world.
While the Taliban Emirate disintegrated in the wake of the US invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, it is too early to predict if the IS caliphate will go the Taliban way in the near future. Soon after IS fighters had defeated Iraqi troops in Mosul ignominiously, some top US generals believed it would take five to seven years to defeat the Islamist rebels. Interestingly, when Mosul fell, IS had around 30,000 to 50,000 fighters, less than 60 artillery pieces, a similar number of tanks and no air force. By now, the enigmatic terrorist-cum-insurgent group has enlisted thousands of fighters — Muslim men and a few women — from across the world.
Its popularity among jihadist ideology motivated Muslim youths is phenomenal. Being disillusioned with their top leaders for negotiating peace with US and Afghan governments, some Afghan Taliban fighters have joined the group. A news report in a Bangladeshi daily (Bangladesh Pratidin, March 24, 2015) reveals that several Islamist groups in Bangladesh, India, Myanmar and Pakistan are also getting organised to fight for their own Islamic state in South Asia. Now, it seems, IS is everywhere.
As IS victory in Iraq shocked analysts and observers, so did the way the White House, state department and Pentagon reacted to the fall of Mosul. While the decisive defeat of Iraqi troops by IS caught the White House by surprise, US analysts since then have started drawing alarmist pictures about the future of Iraq and the entire Muslim world. They think: a) not only Iraq and Syria but also the entire Muslim world, and even the US, are going to face IS attacks in the near future, b) Iraq is going to be fragmented into three entities — the Kurdish north, Sunni central and Shia south — and c) eventually an IS-led caliphate would transcend the entire region from Turkey to Iraq and Egypt to Yemen, and beyond.
However, we know Washington loves to fight deceptive proxy wars in different corners of the world on a regular basis and often overblows things to justify false flag operations. Ever since President Johnson lied about a communist attack on US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin on August 4, 1964, as the pretext for a full-fledged invasion of North Vietnam, Washington has never looked back. It lied about Saddam Hussein’s non-existing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Washington has never stopped patronising and promoting the reactionary Saudi regime, even by condoning its gross violations of human rights for decades. The US’s ongoing support for Saudi-sponsored violent Islamist rebels in Syria may be mentioned in this regard. In view of this, one may raise the question: Are IS fighters the US’s Saudi chickens, which have come home to roost finally?
Although IS hates democracy and secularism, and seems to be on a killing spree, eliminating Shias, liberal Muslims, Christians and western hostages, its controlling Iraqi territories is not all bad news for the US. This possibly legitimises US boots on the ground, which would signal another windfall for its military-industrial complex. Then again, proxy wars and false flag operations sometimes backfire. Like its precursors in Afghanistan, the mujahideen, al Qaeda and Taliban, IS seems to have emerged as the latest Frankenstein’s monster for Washington. Nevertheless, IS’s anti-Shia position accentuates the Shia-Sunni conflict and legitimises Washington’s false flag operations across the region. At the end of the day, Washington is likely to get rich dividends from the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, being fought in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
US obsession with the Islamist regime in Iran and the Baathist regime in Syria is at the core of the IS problem. US support for the Free Syrian Army was a step towards strengthening Syrian rebels, including the obscurantist IS. By early 2012, US and Israeli armed and Saudi financed Arab mercenaries infiltrated into Syria in the guise of the Free Syrian Army. Interestingly, they were fighting along with al Qaeda fighters against the Assad regime. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton later admitted that anti-Assad rebels and al Qaeda had fought together against the Syrian army.
There are dozens of anti-Assad al Qaeda affiliates among Syrian rebels. Saudi Arabia backs some of them. Among others, al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra strives for a caliphate in Syria, Iraq and beyond. In mid 2013 they merged with another al Qaeda affiliate, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to establish a bigger Islamic entity out of Syria and Iraq. And the rest is history. However, we may not take the US’s alarming views seriously. Iraq is least likely going to be divided into three independent entities and the so-called caliphate will fizzle out soon. Wishful thinking and geopolitically unattainable goals do not converge.
The conflict is likely to overflow into Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq among Kurds and others. Syrian Kurds might also strive for autonomy. The spillover effect of Syrian sectarian conflicts will further destabilise Iraq. Since Hezbollah in Lebanon depends on Syrian support, a Sunni Islamist regime could be lukewarm to hostile to the Shia militia. One is not sure if post-Assad Syria could still be friends with Iran and Hezbollah. However, Iran is likely to control Iraq for decades and through Iraq is likely to keep an eye on Syria and influence Syrians.
It is time the Obama administration realises that its support for pro-Islamist rebels in Syria was the main catalyst behind the rise of IS. By maintaining positive neutrality in the Saudi-Iranian proxy war in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, Washington should allow the UN, Arab League and Iran a free hand to resolve the crisis. Obama should realise that if rebels win in Syria, they will certainly form a government hostile to the US and Israel. It could become a replica of post-Saddam Iraq and, even worse, a failed state. As Bush’s Iraq invasion empowered Iraq’s Shia majority and turned Iraq into an Iranian satellite, Obama’s support for Sunni extremists in Syria greatly contributed to the rise of IS.
In sum, the US must not play the Israel card in its negotiations with Iran and should discard the Saudi card to resolve the Syrian civil war. While the Saudi regime is the most reactionary and intolerant in the Muslim world — only marginally better than the erstwhile Taliban regime in Afghanistan — Washington must abandon all conservative ideas about stopping Iran’s bomb by bombing Iran. Nothing short of engaging Tehran by Washington as a partner for peace and progress, all the major crises in the region, including the growing menace of IS, will remain there to haunt us for decades.

The writer teaches security studies at Austin Peay State University. He has recently published his book Global Jihad and America: The Hundred-Year War Beyond Iraq and Afghanistan