ISIL: political and financial

connections with other state

actors
Jakub Nowak

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or Islamic State, a jihadist
militant group proclaiming a worldwide caliphate, has been present in
media and connected with most of acts of terror for many months. As for
today, over 60 countries including the European Union, United States,
Turkey, Saudi Arabia or Iran are directly or indirectly waging war against
ISIL1. Despite alleged efforts of joint forces, ISIL becomes stronger and
enhances its influence. Islamic State is well coordinated group with its own
financial resources coming mainly from oil export. It is estimated that ISIL
currently has about 2 billion dollars of available financial resources 2, which
makes it the richest terrorist organization in the world. However, according
to many researchers and commentators, its position would not be so
strong without support, either financial or political, from state actors. In my
essay I would briefly describe possible connections between ISIL and state
actors.
On the one hand, at least presented in a mainstream media, Saudi Arabia
has been key partner of the U.S.- led coalition against ISIL targets in Syria
and Iraq. The situation however is much more difficult and unclear. Saudi
Arabia has been known for supporting foreign extremist groups and
financing Islamic radicalism around the world for many years. Saudi Arabia
has invested millions of dollars in promotion of its Wahhabi-Salafist brand
of Islam, defined by ultraconservatism and fundamentalism. Situation
between ISIL and Saudi Arabia is also interesting, because they share the
same idea of radical Sunni Islamic regime based on Wahhabism. Saudi
Arabia has been constantly violating human rights for many years. Only
ISIL can be compared to it in the level of cruelty against political or
religious opponents. On the other hand, however, king of Saudi Arabia
holding a title of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques person entitled
by the God himself to govern over the Muslim world, cannot accept Abu
Bakr al-Baghdadi self-proclaimed caliph of a worldwide caliphate. The
conflict of interests is obvious, there cannot be two kings. However, if not
the alliance with the United States and political correctness which comes
out of it, Saudi Arabia could be described more similar than different to
ISIL, when it comes to ideology.
There is no official proof that Saudi Arabia has ever financed ISIL
directly, although its indirect commitment is unquestionable. It has all
started with Al Qaeda, which was secretly trained by CIA and financed by
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant
2 http://www.dw.com/en/who-finances-isis/a-17720149

Saudi Arabia in 1980s to fight with Soviet Union in Afghanistan 3. It all

continued with the beginning of so-called war on terror, when American
invasion on Iraq and destruction of Saddam Husseins regime let the
radical Sunni groups to grow. New Shiite regime made Sunni citizens
unemployed, dispossessed of their assets and let them gradually radicalize
and be prone to propaganda. Situation in Iraq rather fast became worse
than ever.
Since 2010 radical groups have been focusing on Syria, using internal
problems as an excuse to gain its own interests. Basically the conflict
between current regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and rebels is a
proxy war of United States and Russia (+ Iran, according to some
scholars)4. Many of so-called rebels are members and agents of ISIL,
secretly supported by the United States with help of Saudi Arabia and
Turkey. American-made weapons in the hands of ISIL fighters are clear
evidence of backstage contest between global powers in the Middle East
region. United States, on the one hand fighting with ISIL, on the other
supporting it, as an ally in fight with pro-Russian al-Assad. It is quite
remarkably similar to Cold Wars proxy conflicts.
Another important actor on the stage of Middle East is Turkey.
Officially involved in military intervention against ISIL in U.S.-led coalition,
according to many is secretly involved in supporting the alleged enemy.
Syrian representative to the United Nations has accused Turkey of
supporting terrorist groups and their invasion into Syria 5. According to his
letter to the UN Security Council () [Turkish] forces have also provided
covering fire for the terrorists' movements inside Syrian territory or along
the Syrian-Turkish border, in order to facilitate the infiltration of terrorist
mercenaries from Turkish territory into Syrian territory, (). He also said,
that Turkey is trying to revive the Ottoman colonial legacy. It is obvious
that Turkey is trying to play its own game and pursue its interests in the
area of Middle East, no matter if the accusations are valid.
Despite information proclaimed by Western, mainstream media and
official statements of Western politicians, the position of ISIL could have
not been so strong nowadays, without mistakes or deliberate actions of
Western world. Playing its own interests, especially by the United States,
destabilized the region and let extremists grow strong. Ostensibly fighting
with global terrorism is in fact an excuse to pursue national interests.
Problems with Islamist extremism started in 1980s and has escalated in
after 2001, with American intervention in Iraq. I believe that now, when all
the parties are pursuing their own interests, ISIL is a convenient excuse
and the situation is too complex to be handled in the next few years.
3 http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isisterror-group/5402881
4 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-syria-proxy-war-against-the-islamicstate-isis-has-reached-its-climax-military-escalation-towards-a-us-natosponsored-ground-invasion/5507357
5 https://www.rt.com/news/327413-syria-turkey-ottoman-empire/

References:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/
https://www.rt.com
http://www.dw.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/