Skip to content

Isis close to defeat as imperialists prepare for war

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-13

Core Argument

The article argues that the imminent military defeat of ISIS in Iraq and Syria does not signal the end of conflict in the Middle East, but rather the opening of a more direct phase of inter-imperialist rivalry. The central thesis is that the destruction of ISIS's territorial caliphate removes a shared enemy that had temporarily aligned competing powers, and that the scramble to fill the resulting vacuum — over oil-rich provinces, border crossings, and strategic corridors — will produce bloodier, more conventional conflicts between the US, Russia, Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. The defeat of one Islamist faction, moreover, will not end political Islamism, which is a recurring product of imperialist intervention and regional instability, not its cause.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis is rooted in the classical Marxist theory of imperialism, particularly Lenin's conception of interimperialist rivalry as the driving force of conflict in the epoch of capitalism's decline. It does not treat ISIS as a sui generis phenomenon — a "terrorist" aberration — but as a product of the destruction of state structures by US-led interventions (Iraq, Libya) and the manipulation of sectarian and religious forces by regional powers (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar) for geopolitical advantage. The article draws on the Marxist understanding of the state as an instrument of class rule, showing how the Iraqi state was deliberately hollowed out by the US occupation and then reconstituted under Iranian influence via Shia militias. It also deploys the concept of "bonapartism" implicitly, in its treatment of the Assad regime's survival through the manipulation of rival imperialist patrons.

The argument sits within the Trotskyist tradition's emphasis on the "permanent revolution" in the colonial and semi-colonial world, and its insistence that the national bourgeoisies of the Middle East are incapable of independent development, serving instead as intermediaries for competing imperialist blocs. The article's refusal to treat the Assad regime, the Kurdish forces, or the Iraqi government as progressive alternatives reflects the tradition's rejection of "lesser evil" frameworks and its insistence that all parties to the conflict represent different factions of the ruling class, backed by different imperialist powers.

Conjunctural Relevance

Written in May 2017, the article captures a precise moment of transition: the final military collapse of ISIS's territorial project (Mosul's last pocket, the encirclement of Raqqa, pressure on Deir ez-Zor) and the simultaneous diplomatic manoeuvring among the great powers. The "de-escalation zone" deal between Russia, Turkey, and Iran — which excluded the US and marginalised Saudi Arabia — is identified as a key conjunctural development. The article correctly anticipates the opening of a new front in western Iraq, where Saudi Arabia was arming Sunni tribes against Iranian-backed forces, and the intensification of the war in Yemen.

The analysis of the $110bn US-Saudi arms deal, announced during Trump's May 2017 visit, is prescient: it identifies the deal as a blank cheque for Saudi military action against Iran, including the threat of war on Iranian soil. The article also foresees the fragmentation of the Iraqi state along sectarian and ethnic lines, with the Kurdish region effectively independent and the remainder divided between Shia and Sunni zones of control.

The piece is also notable for its early identification of Africa as an emerging battleground, pointing to French and US operations against Boko Haram and Al Shabaab, and the likely return of Tunisian ISIS fighters to destabilise their home country — a prediction borne out by subsequent events.

Where the Argument Continues

The article leaves several threads underdeveloped, which are taken up elsewhere in the IDOM corpus. The analysis of the Kurdish question — the PKK-linked SDF's role in Raqqa, Turkey's intervention in Afrin, and the limits of Kurdish autonomy under US patronage — is treated briefly here but receives fuller treatment in later articles on the Turkish invasion of northern Syria (2018, 2019) and the collapse of US-Kurdish relations. The question of the Russian position — its willingness to constrain Iran and Assad at Al Tanf, and its broader strategy of managing rather than resolving the Syrian conflict — is flagged but not fully theorised; later IDOM pieces on Russian imperialism in the Middle East develop this more systematically.

The article's concluding call for "decisive action by the working class" is programmatic rather than concrete. The question of what such action would look like in the specific conditions of the Middle East — where the working class is atomised, displaced, and divided by sect and ethnicity — is not addressed. This is taken up in broader IDOM articles on the tasks of revolutionaries in the Arab world and the need for a socialist federation of the Middle East as an alternative to imperialist partition.

Connections

The article should be read alongside Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism for the theoretical framework of interimperialist rivalry. Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed and his writings on the permanent revolution provide the background for the analysis of the "failed revolutions" in Libya and Syria. For the specific question of political Islam as a product of imperialist intervention, the article connects to the broader Marxist literature on the subject, including the work of Gilbert Achcar and the writings of the Revolutionary Communist International on the Arab Spring and its aftermath.

Within the IDOM corpus, this article connects to earlier pieces on the rise of ISIS (2014-2015) and later analyses of the Turkish invasion of Afrin (2018), the US withdrawal from Syria (2019), and the economic crisis in Iraq and Lebanon. It also connects to Against the Stream episodes on the geopolitics of the Middle East and the role of Iran in the region.

Key Quotes

  1. "The defeat of Isis under these circumstances only prepares the way for bloodier conflicts in the future, with no resolution in sight."

  2. "The de-escalation deal between Assad, Russia, Turkey and Iran became a necessity as US-backed forces were advancing on Isis... Freeing Assad to capture Isis territory is therefore in their interest."

  3. "The US is attempting to contain Iran. It has been forced to hand over control over the bulk of Iraq to Iran, but it is desperately scrambling to stop Iran from dominating the region."

  4. "Although Isis might come to an end, a host of Islamist groups are sprouting to take their place."

  5. "The conditions that prepared the way for the Isis are only getting worse. The mess created by Bush's interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan was compounded by Obama's reluctant intervention in Libya, and more enthusiastic intervention in Syria."

  6. "The capitalist system in its period of senile decay is bringing in its wake catastrophe after catastrophe. More and more countries are swept into an increasing maelstrom of conflict between the imperial powers."