ISIS Talking Points

Friday is upon us and this is usually the day of the week when we stray from reviewing gear and getting the word out about new product offerings from our industry partners to add a little fun to our Blog with a lite humor. We also present our thoughts on relevant issues that mainstream media may skew to one side or the other.

When ISIS began operations in Iraq we felt that the U.S. should do nothing and allow the situation to play itself out. We still feel that way. Why?

1. Iraq was never ours period. It belongs to Iran. The Al-Maliki government, principally Shea Muslims have a bad taste in their mouths for Sunni Muslims, and the population suffered the brunt of that ideology. In fact, one of  several reasons Iran was able to circumvent sanctions was its Iraqi proxy and Shea Muslim affiliation.

2. The Al-Assad government in Syria also belongs to Iran and serves as a conduit for Iranian materiel and funding for Hezbollah. Although it is a marriage of convenience as opposed to a deeply rooted allegiance based on religion, or anything else for that matter.

3. Unlike the west, political ideology is not the driver for interrelationships in the region, it’s sectarian,  Shea v. Sunni, and less so for Afghanistan and Pakistan where tribal relationships are the cement holding things together.

4. No action the United States can take will result in a political or ideological win. Supporting Shias would alienate the Sunnis, and vice versa.

5. Furthermore, in order to prevent a nuclear Iran, you need less sympathetic governments in Iraq and Syria. ISIS is that surrogate force to accomplish the task. If properly managed, transitional governments in Iraq and Syria will go a long way towards reducing state sponsored terrorism and a nuclear Iran.

6.There is an assumption that ISIS will establish a caliphate in Iraq and Syria, which I think is possible, but short-lived. The radical component of ISIS is like an opportunistic pathogen. It has taken advantage of an Iraqi government that disregarded a large segment of its people and a Syrian state in turmoil with Al-Assad’s foot on the throat of his people. Those are the conditions that created ISIS. However, those countries are beginning to produce antibodies. Iraqis and Syrians are sophisticated, educated and intelligent people which makes for very poor auger; therefore, it is unlikely that Islamic fundamentalism will thrive in those environments.

7. ISIS’s approach to conquest  is bring minds in line with its goals through fear and intimidation. But,  they do serve a purpose as distasteful as that may seem. To date, they remain an isolated regional problem. It is a dynamic that needs to be played out with U.S. involvement limited to humanitarian assistance and the appropriate level of overwatch.   

This entry was posted in In the News and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to ISIS Talking Points

  1. Seen This Before says:

    It’s pretty hard to take seriously the “thoughts” of someone who manages to refer to Shia or Shi’ite Muslims as “Shea.”

    Your analysis ignores that the conflict is much more complicated than your simple sectarian version, and that doing nothing about ISIS both allows them to establish an effective state — with potential billions in oil revenues to be used for further mischief — and throws the Kurds (our only real allies in the area) under the bus, yet again. Neither Iraq nor Syria belong to Iran, but our retreat and neo-isolationism can make Iranian control of both a reality.

    ISIS needs killing. Better now, in Iraq, using air strikes and someone else’s boots on the ground, than someplace more important to us and with the blood of our soldiers.


    • I’ll open by thanking you for commenting. Since it’s quite probable that you move your lips while reading I’m going to go easy on you. My analysis is not intended to be a complete treaties of the regional conflicts. But you can bet the farm that the underlying issues in that region are sectarian Shia v. Sunni. Let’s talk oil first. Were ISIS or ISIL to take control of every oil well in Iraq, it is inconceivable that anyone would ever make a market for them. Were that to occur, the Saudis and Kuwaitis would make up the deficit in production without missing a beat. You may see an uptick in the oil futures but overall nothing to get excited about.
      Militarily, where would they purchase munitions for the weapon systems they took in Iraq so their ability to respond militarily is numbered. They do serve a purpose and we are seeing that unfold in Iraq with a new government. If they succeed in Syria and depose Al Assad it could very well be a double bonus. I’m not overly optimistic about the new Shia Iraqi PM, but if manged correctly this is a golden opportunity to put the Iranian nuclear threat to rest, once and for all, not to mention reducing or eliminating state sponsored terrorism in the region. Both Iraq and Syria are Iranian proxies to circumvent sanctions and to sponsor terrorism against the state of Israel to the determine of the Palestinian people who are simply trying to have a life. ISIS is self liquidating and you can bet the core of its abilities are Sunni Muslims disenfranchised by former PM Maliki. Bombings, other than in support of humanitarian and security efforts, will only serve to create a greater divide and radicalization, because you’d be killing the same Sunnis that were disenfranchised by Maliki. You will also destroy any chance of ever containing the Iranian nuclear effort.


Comments are closed.