Can ISIS take over the Middle East?

Crikey readers talk the crisis in the Middle East, its players, and its possible goals.

The Middle East mess Martin Gordon writes: Re. "Rundle: the deadly cast of characters in Iraq's lethal ISIS game" (Tuesday). The usual torrent of letters critical of the US and proposing inaction in Iraq seem to have their blinkers on regarding Islamic extremist activity. The naysayers comfortable in their cynicism seem to not be able to connect their in-effect support for the likes of Saddam Hussein and even these Islamists. The late Christopher Hitchens suggested the Left be more self-critical of the outcome of their positions, and it still applies today. The problem is not just in Iraq -- the scale of Islamist outrages in the last four years has spanned (in a short and incomplete summation) Algeria, Mali, Somalia, Kenya, Uganda, India, Pakistan, Syria, Nigeria, and they cannot be blamed on the US. Take the blinkers off and think a lot more, rather than just falling back onto old cynicism. Jack Davies writes: Though I hold Guy Rundle's journalism in the highest regard, I have a few reservations about his 17 June article on Iraq's "deadly cast". I have followed the Iraqi developments closely, and nothing I have read suggests that ISIL plans to, or would be remotely capable of, marching on the Kurdish Autonomous Zone. I think, on a general level, Rundle overestimates ISIL's capacity, despite its stunning successes. Secondly, while the PKK might be summoned to rally against any ISIL invasion, it would be the well-trained, fearsome Peshmerga forces that would be defending the Kurdish region. They are the defence of the region, and many think they are the strongest force in Iraq. Therefore, issues of the PKKs communist ideology, to my mind, are barely relevant in this conflict. Not to mention the general softening of PKK ideology in recent years, to the point of a lasting (so far) unilateral ceasefire and withdrawal from Turkish territory. Thirdly, Rundle does not mention the fact that Ankara is among the most important clients of of the Kurdistan Regional Government, and has significant energy interests in its survival. And the KRG will depend on Turkey buying its oil for income in the likely even that its 17% of Baghdad's budget not be fully allocated to the region. It is impossible for me to imagine ISIL taking Erbil without somehow combating the might of the Turkish military, among the strongest in the region. I appreciate that Rundle is not trying to synthesise every in and out of this conflict, but I think he has homed in on some sideways issues, and missed some very important points. Lastly, Rundle is absolutely correct about Abbott screwing up Australia. Ian Mannix writes: Far be it for me to give credit where it might not be due, but I cant help but wonder if the Middle East plunging into despair was top of the agenda of Osama Bin Laden, way back at 9/11,  and perhaps the disintegration of the power structures are therefore more to his influence than the historical relationships between ethnic and religious groups? By antagonising the US into war first on the Taliban and then on Saddam Hussein, he effectively wrecked a couple of powerful dictatorships, and destabilised Pakistan, creating the conditions for extremists to believe they had a chance of taking power. If it is true that present circumstances are more due to him than history, then it’s reasonable to ask who would do the most to reverse the Bin Laden legacy? The answer: Iran. Perhaps it’s time the coalition of the willing started listening to the analysts who’ve been saying that,  since, well, 9/11. But of course if the answer is Iran, it’s not a good question.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

3 thoughts on “Can ISIS take over the Middle East?

  1. Guy Rundle


    well i put my remarks as a series of open questions, and emphasised the contradictions that might flow from further actions. the most likely effect of isis – i’ll stick withe originalacronym – is a consolidation of anti-islamist sunni groups, it would seem. but that might not survive further successes by isis. no, i dont think theyll turn on northern iraq. but noone thought theyd take mosul either.

  2. klewso

    I can’t recall that many “Lefties” talking up the bona fides of these Islamic extremists, but I can cite their condemnation of the way The West has meddled in their cultures, particularly under conservative leaderships, and to benefit Western commercial interests.
    Hitchins could have used a mirror – it wouldn’t hurt the Right to take a little time out to consider the ramifications of their infallability?

  3. ross shying

    Not so long ago western powers obsessed about how to arm and support groups opposing Assad in Syria. Now we argue about the need for air strike in Iraq, imagine the reaction when a US airstrike blows away a truckload of civilians. The Iraqi’s have to be helped to defend their 0wn land. Extremists are powered by the bigotry of corrupt governments, favouring their chosen people, disrespecting other groups, failing their leadership responsibilities again and again and again.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details