The rise of the militant movement Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Levant) (ISIS) and its rampaging occupation of large swathes of territories in Iraq and declaration of a caliphate in the lands in its possession on June 29 have left every pundit of international relations, particularly the Middle East, aghast. The swiftness with which the ISIS has moved forward: first taking the northern Iraqi strategic city of Mosul, its knocking at the doors of Baghdad and entering parts of Syria, has outwitted the analysts to explain and predict the events. Such swiftness is unprecedented for a relatively new militant entity.

Insofar as the ISIS (or ISIL) is concerned, with some variations, it is the new name of the Musab Al-Zarqawi group of Sunni militants of Iraq, which launched massive attacks on US troops and civilian population in Iraq after Washington’s occupation of Iraq in 2003. Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian by origin, ran a militant training camp in Afghanistan before going to Iraq. He merged his own organisation al-Tawhid wal-Jihad into al-Qaeda which became al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

The aim of the ISIS is to establish a Sunni Islamic Empire in Iraq and Syria and the adjoining small states. In this regard the inclusion of the term Levant into its nomenclature is extremely important. The Levant is a geographic and cultural region consisting of the Eastern Mediterranean between Anatolia and Egypt. In modern day, Levant could be said to include Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey.

The region is located at the crossroads of Western Asia, the Eastern Mediterranean and Northeast Africa. It means that the ISIS intends to include all these countries and territories into the empire. Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi has become a self-declared Amir-ul-Momineen of all Muslims of the world.

The new militant group emerged with the death of Al-Zarqawi in a US airstike on June 7, 2006. The successor of Al-Zarqawi, Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi announced to rename AQI in Iraq as Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). In April 2013, ISIS came into existence with the merger of ISI and Syrian Sunni militant group, Jabhat al-Nusra (JN). The AQI leadership was not happy with the merger and it bid adieu to ISIS. So it is a misperception to consider ISIS as an extension of the al-Qaeda.

A closer look at the structure and orientation of ISIS suggests that it may turn out to be more important a militant organisation than the al-Qaeda because unlike al-Qaeda’s signature tactics of large-scale terrorist attacks, the ISIS has launched a full-fledged military-style ground offensive and is interested in territory rather than terror. This strategy and modus operandi would get the movement more supporters as they could see something concrete in the shape of a Muslim empire and if that is not possible at least the emergence of a strong Muslim state in the Middle East.

The ISIS surfaced in Iraq because of the large-scale political instability and vacuum which has literally divided up the country into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parts despite one state on the map. The Iraqi government under Prime Minister Nuri-Al Maliki could not ensure stability in Iraq since the withdrawal of the US troops in 2011 primarily because of his sectarian Shiite background. This has left large Sunni population of Iraq disenchanted. This is one of the reasons that ISIS has got significant public support in the northern Sunni populated regions of Iraq.

The rise of ISIS and its rapid victories on the ground have posed serious threat to the territorial survival of Iraq. The fact of the matter is that after the capture of Mosul and other regions towards the border of Syria by the ISIS, Iraq is virtually no more a monolithic entity. Already Kurdish Regional Government in north of Iraq has taken advantage of the situation to unite Kurdish population of Iraq for the establishment of a new state. Iraqi Kurds Regional Government Deputy Prime Minister Qubad Talabani recently called for a decentralised Iraq if the country is to survive, warning that his semi-autonomous region would gain de facto independence if the slide into chaos created by the ISIS continued. Interestingly, Qubad is the son of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

The rampaging ISIS and the virtual demise of Iraq have also put the territorial solidarity of many other countries of the region at stake. These include Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Turkey.

The next target of the ISIS is the civil war-struck Syria. The prevailing political vacuum in Syria provides the most favourable conditions for the ISIS to advance on Syria. Already the ISIS has captured Syrian territory in northeast on its desert border with Iraq. The anti-government rebels in Syria fighting against the forces of President Bashar Al Asad are most likely to join forces with ISIS. This would also marginalise the al-Qaeda in Syria.

The capturing of vast tracts of territory by the ISIS in Iraq could be quite disconcerting for Iran than any other neigbouring country. Once the Sunni militant movement gets itself well-entrenched it would turn against the Shiite dominant areas of Iraq. In the unfolding scenario, Iran has a great challenge ahead to support the Iraqi Shiite to hold their ground. This would be quite taxing on Iranian economy and military muscles. Tehran studying the situation offered all out military help to Iraqi government to negotiate with the ISIS threat.

Even such stable countries of the region like Turkey is feeling the heat of the ISIS advance if not directly getting affected by it so far. Noticeably, Turkey has its own Kurdish minority areas, where rebel groups like the Kurdistan Workers Party have been waging a separatist struggle but it could not be successful because of the division of Kurds in many countries including Syria, Iraq and Iran apart from Turkey. However, in case an independent Kurdistan state emerges from the turmoil in Iraq, Turkey would find itself in dire straits as its Kurdish population would push for joining the independent Kurdish state. Already many Turkish Kurds belonging to Kurdistan Workers’ Party and the People’s Protection Units have been reportedly defending Kurdish territories along with the local armed Kurdish group Peshmerga in northern Iraq from ISIS onslaught.

Sensing the situation, Turkey has tried to manage it by forging warm relations with Iraqi Kurdistan. Turkey has been facilitating Kurdish government to export oil from the oil-rich Kirkuk through its port Ceyhan by tankers. This overture is aimed at economically stabilising autonomous Kurdistan region of Iraq. This is good diplomacy as in case the secession of Kurdish areas of Turkey becomes inevitable to join the Kurdish state, in Ankara’s calculation, it must happen amicably rather than through armed struggle or violence.

Saudi Arab is also going to bear the brunt of the ISIS upsurge. The dismemberment of Iraq would not augur well for the kingdom. Further intriguing development is that the head of ISIS, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, claims himself to be a Hashemite and thus a legitimate person to become a caliph. This would challenge the authority and legitimacy of House of Saud, which has ruled Saudi Arabia since its creation in 1932.

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan led by King Abdullah II would be equally under threat if the ISIS is able to hold its own and consolidate its positions in Iraq and Syria.

Apart from its political implications, the ISIS uprising would also have its economic ramifications. The full control of the oil-rich Kirkuk region by Kurdistan Regional Government has been mentioned. On the other hand although the oil-rich Shiite dominated regions of Iraq are for the time being immune to the ISIS onslaught and therefore may not affect oil production and supplies, the militancy has sent the oil prices surging. For instance, the Brent crude has climbed to $113 a barrel for the first time this year. Saudi Arabia is going to pocket the windfall while Russia is also quite happy with the development. Due to sanctions, Iran cannot take advantage of the situation per se.

The relative silence and inaction from the US and rest of the West and Russia on the development in Iraq is quite astonishing. While the US has already ordered its aircraft carrier, George WH Bush, to the Gulf and has sent 3000 military advisers to help Iraqi government cope with the situation, it otherwise has remained disinterested. The reason could be that in Washington’s calculation either the threat posed by the ISIS may not be that big or it deliberately let the organisation make advances.

The rest of the West seemingly agrees with the US unofficial stance. In calculation of the West, the ISIS and its ‘empire’ could provide stability to the highly unstable region. It may also foresee the ISIS as a counterpoise to al-Qaeda in the region. However, this calculation is hinged on the expectation that negotiations and engagement with a militant group holding territory and having a political programme is easy than managing several unstable countries and eliminating the al-Qaeda.

For Russia, apart from the oil price, the strategic cost of the ISIS could be huge. Once there is an Islamic Empire in Iraq and Syria, howsoever mini it may be, its impact on the Muslim states of Central Asian, neighbouring Russia, would be insurmountable. The host of Muslim fundamentalist groups including the IMU and others fighting repressive regimes in their respective countries would get a fillip and may try to replicate the ISIS experience in trying to establish a trans Central Asian Muslim Empire. Even an aborted attempt in this regard would be extremely costly for Russia. The West’s relative silence on the ISIS and its agenda must be to the chagrin of Israel for whom the thought of having an Islamic Empire in the region is nightmarish.