ISSN 2330-717X

Why Is The US Reluctant To Bomb Islamic State Oil Fields? – Analysis

By

By Ryan Opsal

There has been some revealing new information coming out recently regarding the strategy against ISIS. One aspect many find troubling is the apparent failure of U.S. and coalition forces to sufficiently target and destroy oil infrastructure located in ISIS territory, which accounts for a significant portion of the terror group’s annual income. The argument goes, if we want to impact their operations, we should target their primary sources of income, and choke off their operational funds. So, why does ISIS oil infrastructure still stand? Is this the result of an intelligence failure? Negligence? Or, is there a more purposeful reason?

Using data from the Department of Defense, we can see the targeting of oil infrastructure has indeed been a relatively low priority. Buildings and military positions receive the bulk of coalition attention, and only 260 oil-related targets have been destroyed since operations began, out of 16,075 targets damaged or destroyed. And, we now know just how many of these oil-related targets remain. So, what reason could coalition forces have for holding off?

We now know with a high degree of certainty that ISIS receives the majority of its oil income selling unrefined crude, at the pump. There was some idea this was the case, but now it is more certain. This means the ISIS oil trade goes as far as pumping oil from the ground, and then selling it to a long line of waiting tanker trucks that are typically not affiliated with the group. And, while ISIS used to run some marginal refining operations, that appears to no longer be the case. Additionally, we now know the organization’s largest market is not from exports, but through sales to its local, monopolized market in northern Syria. The fact that most of the income is local, and not from exports is even more fascinating when you learn that not only does this oil find its way to local civilians that need fuel for power generation, but that much of the fuel finds its way to Assad’s government forces and the various rebel groups that are arrayed against ISIS itself.

We also now have a better understanding of the extent of ISIS’ diverse revenue stream outside of oil. For instance, last year, in the midst of the chaos in northern Iraq, the terror group turned to robbery, and stole well over $500 million from Iraqi banks. They also onerously tax the locals that are unfortunate enough to live under their rule. And, most surprising are the large revenues garnered from farming on very fertile Syrian and Iraqi land. These sources are far more important than the oft-reported revenues from hostage taking and the selling of sex slaves. This tells us oil is important, but not a silver bullet to disrupt operations.

So, a possible reason for not decisively interrupting oil operations could include preservation of infrastructure for rebuilding after the conflict. This certainly has precedent, since coalition forces have tried this in Iraq and Afghanistan most recently, and territorial shifts occur rapidly in this current conflict. Consider this a lesson learned from Kuwait in 1991.

Another possibility is the US does not want to cause any environmental damage in the surrounding region, having learned another hard lesson from the First Gulf War. This is possible, but highly unlikely. In the face of open war and killing enemies, it is extremely difficult to imagine any government placing environmental concerns over decisive strikes against an enemy. This approach does not have precedent.

Another scenario, which may be the be most plausible, is a play for local fighters to turn on ISIS, prevent further humanitarian issues in the region, and to maintain supplies to rebel groups fighting both ISIS and Assad. A loss of fuel in this region would be extremely detrimental to the local population, which relies overwhelmingly on generators for power, fueled by ISIS oil. The same goes for all the groups fighting ISIS – they all receive fuel from their enemies’ oil pumps. Without fuel, this could hamper the war effort on the ground, and even draw the local population into further compliance with ISIS. Since oil provides the lifeline for many civilians under ISIS rule, this must be taken into account for any long-term strategy in the region.

Some might mock the fact that the U.S. Air Force, before a recent strike, dropped pamphlets on the oil transport vehicles giving the occupants 45 minutes to vacate their tankers before air attacks would commence. This is simply a recognition of how crucial a local population is to combatting insurgencies and terrorist groups. We know the tanker drivers are most likely not affiliated with ISIS in any way, and might even despise the terror organization. They might even be retrieving fuel to be delivered to the very forces that are fighting against ISIS.

It’s incredibly important to keep in mind the limits of military power when waging counter-terror and counter-insurgency operations, a fact not lost on top military officials in Washington. Our understanding as to how to effectively combat terror groups has grown immensely in recent years, and key aspects of this are to allow for the creation of divisions in the territory and the terror organization itself and to ultimately draw in the local population to your side. The former involves containing the group and allowing those divisions to bubble to the surface over time.

This is a key point by terrorism expert Daniel Byman, where he makes the case for “containment” and “de-legitimation” in a scholarly work from 2007. In a sense, this was U.S. counterterrorism strategy globally before 2001. The other component is key, and was effectively used in Iraq in 2006-2007, when the Sunni Awakening went into effect after local tribal groups cut deals with U.S. forces, and turned on al Qaeda. This was a vital juncture in the campaign in Iraq ushering in relative calm in a turbulent part of the world.

It’s important to note that the available information provides a conflicting picture and we can’t be entirely clear on motives at this point. However, the evidence does plausibly point toward forcing realignment of local tribal groups against ISIS, and the maintenance of crucial supplies to resistance groups throughout the region, both corroborated with past actions by U.S. and coalition forces, and counterterrorism strategy. It also remains to be seen if the United States is forced to abandon this strategy given recent attacks and Russian involvement in the region. It may now simply be untenable, for any reason, to forgo attacks on oil infrastructure in the region.

Article Source: http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/Why-Is-The-US-Reluctant-To-Bomb-ISIS-Oil-Fields.html

OilPrice.com

OilPrice.com

OilPrice.com is the fastest growing energy news site online. Analysis focuses on Oil and Gas, Alternative Energy and Geopolitics.

3 thoughts on “Why Is The US Reluctant To Bomb Islamic State Oil Fields? – Analysis

  • Avatar
    December 4, 2015 at 10:45 am
    Permalink

    In this contemporary world, Trust only yourself and Putin…. the rest are all US small or big cynical enterprises that will get you in one-way or other

    Reply
  • Avatar
    December 4, 2015 at 3:22 pm
    Permalink

    This analysis does not go to the reason why Foreign air power does not bomb Daesh oil export to Turkey and Iraq (Kurdistan). The reason is very simple and has nothing to do with the environment. Daesh oil goes from Syria to Turkey and from Syria to Northern Iraq and from the latter to Turkey. The final destination is Israel. This may be payments for treating Daesh wounded terrorist fighters and for the purchase of some military equipment. US and other western nations are defenders of Israel and they protect the Israeli interests. Another basic important factor is to keep Daesh growing in the region: the containment idea. This containment will achieve multiple targets such as high profitability to the military industrial complex firms, more killing of Muslims and instability in the region, and the achievement of dividing Iraq and Syria as the beginning for more division of other Arab and Muslim countries. And the policy of division is also a strategic goal of Israel. Furthermore, keeping Daesh contained in the region can be expanded to Russia to settle some previous scores and to hit hard the only No Yes country to the NATO imperialism. In short, US, western European nations, and Israel aim at containing Daesh in the region and impeding any serious effort to eliminate Daesh: Saboteurs (Please Read Thorstein Veblen for excellent explanation of Sabotage).

    Reply
  • Avatar
    January 4, 2016 at 4:14 am
    Permalink

    Once again, I must praise Adil Mouhammed’s analysis, which corresponds closely to everything I’ve been able to ascertain about this very complex situation. The “policy of division” is the strategic goal of both Israel and the neo-Cons in Washington D.C. largely because the strategic goal of Israel is to establish and make secure Greater Israel (Yeretz Israel to the Orthodox). The other side of this policy coin is, indeed, to keep Daesh contained but growing in the region. This serves two goals: 1) it focuses the fears of the ignorant American electorate on the coming 2016 US election by giving them an “enemy” the US has itself created along with specious but aggressive plans for how it can be “defeated.” 2) it absorbs very large quantities of weapons and materiel so as to keep those military contracts from the MIC flowing. The fact that innocent blood is being shed in Iraq/Syria is nothing compared to profits for the MIC and tasks for the military services. Without a constant supply of “enemies” the US MIC would break down. In the US “Keep the public fearful and confused” is the mantra which a corporate-controlled media promulgates. It’s a tight system with every part serving every other part–rather like a perpetual motion machine. But when this machine produces WWIII, we had all better say our prayers because it will mark the end of what remains of “Western civilization,” led by the American Empire. Historical ironies abound here, but one wonders if historians will survive to write about them.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.