The Islamic State Reshapes the Middle East
By George Friedman
Nuclear talks with Iran have failed to yield an agreement, but the
deadline for a deal has been extended without a hitch. What would have
been a significant crisis a year ago, replete with threats and anxiety,
has been handled without drama or difficulty. This new response to yet
another failure to reach an accord marks a shift in the relationship
between the United States and Iran, a shift that can’t be understood
without first considering the massive geopolitical shifts that have
taken place in the Middle East, redefining the urgency of the nuclear
issue.
These shifts are rooted in the emergence of the Islamic State.
Ideologically, there is little difference between the Islamic State and
other radical Islamic jihadist movements. But in terms of geographical
presence, the Islamic State has set itself apart from the rest. While al
Qaeda might have longed to take control of a significant nation-state,
it primarily remained a sparse, if widespread, terrorist organization.
It held no significant territory permanently; it was a movement, not a
place. But the Islamic State, as its name suggests, is different. It
sees itself as the kernel from which a transnational Islamic state
should grow, and it has established itself in Syria and Iraq as a
geographical entity. The group controls a roughly defined region in the
two countries, and it has something of a conventional military designed
to defend and expand the state’s control. Thus far, whatever advances
and reversals it has seen, the Islamic State has retained this
character. While the group certainly funnels a substantial portion of
its power into dispersed guerrilla formations and retains a significant
regional terrorist apparatus, it remains something rather new for the
region — an Islamist movement acting as a regional state.
It is unclear whether the Islamic State can survive.
Read more »https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?pli=1#inbox/149e6783ba54458f |
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment