Why ISIS will not return to Al-Qaeda

With the destruction of ISIS' territory, some pundits believe the group will return to Al-Qaeda. This is highly unlikely, because Abu Musab Az-Zarqawi's vision differed considerably from Bin Laden's.

ISIS was born out of the chaos of the Iraq War. Abu Musab Az-Zarqawi, the founder of ISIS under a different name, believed in the deliberate targeting of Shi'ite Muslims and other non-Sunnis to awaken the Sunni Muslim giant - a giant which stretches across every Muslim country in the globe except Iraq and Iran. Al-Qaeda, by contrast, has avoided inflaming sectarian hatred and instead wishes to bankrupt the 'far' enemies of Islam - such as the US and Russia - destroy Israel and slowly return the Muslim world to a state in which a Caliph might rule.

According to Michael Ware - a journalist who lived in Iraq after the war began - Zarqawi's group only pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda out of necessity and not because it aspired to its ideology. With ISIS having made its mark across Syria, Iraq and the globe; having declared the global Caliphate, it would completely undermine the ISIS vision of leading the global jihad to return to Al-Qaeda, and that even with the destruction of all ISIS territory.

More likely is that ISIS will return as an insurgency group in Iraq with the aim of destabilizing the Arabian Gulf, to provoke the last war between 'Rome' (that is, the United States) and the Islamic State. And in this regard, ISIS is likely to succeed where Al-Qaeda cannot, because Saudi Arabia and ISIS are more alike than either of them are to Al-Qaeda.

Needless to say, ISIS will not return to Al-Qaeda. But both will remain considerable threats to any country wishing to deal with the Middle-East.

What if ISIS takes over Saudi Arabia? Detailed analysis.

With the rise of Mohammed Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, the likelihood of either civil war or an outright takeover of the conservative kingdom by ISIS has increased exponentially. This has only been brought further to likelihood by Iranian dominance in Iraq and Syria.

The important question is this: what if ISIS takes over Saudi Arabia? What would happen to the Middle-East and global politics?

1) US' hands would be tied. With pressure mounting on the current Trump Administration to deliver its promise of "America First," with military commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan remaining for the foreseeable future, with the threat of North Korea, there would little the US could do about an ISIS takeover of Saudi Arabia.

US strategy in such circumstance would be to use other Sunni proxies, such as the Jordanian and Egyptian armies, to wrest back control of Saudi Arabia from ISIS.

2) Iraq would be given Saudi's status of most important non-Israeli ally. With the destruction of the Saudi kingdom, the US would be forced to look elsewhere for its top non-Israeli ally in the Middle-East. Iraq would be the obvious choice for several reasons:

First, Iraq has oil, and oil comparable to Saudi oil. Second, it would be unlikely that the US would choose Iran as its top ally, due to its anti-Israeli rhetoric, and it would be less costly politically to use Iraq as the mediator between itself and Iran. Third, Iraq is the vulnerable corridor through which ISIS could expand its territory into the rest of the Middle-East, so it is in American interest to secure it. Fourth, Iraq and US already have better relations than the US has with several neighboring countries.

3) More Muslim countries would be less hesitant to ally or increase relations with Israel. Egyptian and Jordanian relations with Israel are already strong, but in such circumstances these relations would only become stronger.

From Iran and its allies, Iraq is the most likely country to increase relations with Israel substantially, and this due to the Iraqi-US alliance. This would parallel the current US-Israeli-Saudi relations of today, with Iraq instead of Saudi. Even the more anti-Israel states and groups from Iran's side, like Syria, Palestine and Hezbollah, would be forced to some level of rapprochement with Israel to counter the ISIS threat in the Gulf.

4) Other Gulf kingdoms would fall. With Saudi Arabia engulfed by ISIS, the other Gulf kingdoms would be vulnerable to ISIS takeover. Among these include Kuwait, Bahran, UAE and Qatar.

Kuwait and Bahrain are the most vulnerable because they themselves have larger Shi'ite populations. Should Shi'ite populations rise up, ISIS would correspondingly find more sympathy in each country. Qatar and UAE are vulnerable, but less so, as Qatar is protected by Turkey, and the UAE would be protected by Egypt, which helped fund Sisi's ascent to power.

Even so, Bahrain becoming the capital of the new ISIS Caliphate is a frightening possibility.

5) Oman and Yemen would likely survive. While the fate of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE is questionable, Oman and Yemen are more likely to survive an ISIS takeover of Saudi Arabia.

Why? A large reason is Russia. Russia has been eyeing a foothold in Yemen on the side of the Houthis for some time now. With ISIS warring against the Houthis in this scenario, Russia would be legitimized in establishing a no-fly-zone in Yemen and driving ISIS away. The Houthis would then easily take control of the remainder of Yemen as a buffer against ISIS-controlled territory to the north.

With regards to Oman, Oman has endured much peace in the region, and this can be traced back to the main expression of Islam in Oman: Ibadiya. Ibadiya is less focused on the physical jihad than its Sunni and Shi'ite counterparts, and instead cracks down hard on fitna, which is division or dissent. With a Houthi-controlled Yemen to its west and Iran just across the sea, Oman would survive and become an important partner for the west against ISIS.

6) Shi'ites would be killed or driven out. This is one of the more inhuman aspects of an ISIS takeover of Saudi Arabia: Shi'ites would be systematically targeted for extinction. Cities like Qatif and Damam would be levelled to the ground as ISIS would seek Shi'ite genocide. Many would flee to Kuwait and Bahrain, which would only bring ISIS to follow them.

For Gulf monarchies, this would be seen as a convenient way of removing Iran's foothold from the Arabian Gulf without directly engaging in brutal killings. However, the likelihood of their own demise would only increase with letting ISIS ethnically cleanse the Arabian Gulf of the Shi'ites.

Shi'ites surviving the genocide would likely relocate to Iran, Iraq or Syria. Thus the Sunni-Shi'ite balance of the region would be more evenly restored to how it was before the Iraq War.

7) Enormous instability would follow. The global instability that would follow is important to recognize. Not only would oil prices skyrocket; not only would Iran, Iraq, Russia and China get enormously wealthy, but many Muslims would fight jihad either for or against ISIS in the Arabian Peninsula. Millions would fight and millions would die there for or against ISIS.

More concerning for counter-terrorism is that, with ISIS' control of Mecca and Medina, their authority on Islam would solidify, and Muslims would pledge allegiance to ISIS all across the Muslim world, forcing their governments to fight and defeat them in many different countries.

8) The Saudi royal family might return. The Saudi royal family has survived attempted destruction before. When the Arabs revolted against the Ottoman Empire with help from Saud and Ibn Abdul Wahhab, the Saudis were crushed by the Ottomans, but they returned two centuries later in the kingdom we know today. With the Sauds being an enormously wealthy family, many would find shelter in the West, and could perhaps insight rebellion against ISIS once excitement for the reestablishment of the Caliphate has waned and the horrors of ISIS are revealed.



Much must be said about the foolishness of American foreign policy in the Middle-East. This possibility - that ISIS would take over Saudi Arabia - is unavoidable, because Mohammed Bin Salman serves as the best poster boy for ISIS recruitment in the Arabian Gulf.