Recent Items

Washington Reactivates ISIS 

Posted on by

In a brief statement Wednesday U.S. Central Command announced that it is transferring up to 7,000 ISIS detainees from Syria to Iraq. The reason provided is “to help ensure the terrorists remain in secure detention facilities” and it comes on the heels of reports of releases and abandonments at other prisons housing tens of thousands of ISIS members, a ramp up of ISIS activity, and black flags flying again.

The plan includes talk of repatriating many of the ISIS prisoners to their country of origin, and the whole thing raises a whole lot of questions. Coupled with other U.S. moves in Syria and Iraq, the ISIS transfers appear to be part of an effort to further engulf the region in chaos and direct in the direction of Iran. So here are six questions and observations on what’s happening. 

  1. Why Couldn’t the Prisoners Be Repatriated in Previous Years? 

According to Miqdad Miri, the spokesperson for the Iraqi Ministry of Interior, the prisoners will be distributed across high-security prisons throughout Iraq with the ultimate aim of repatriating the majority—many to European nations—to their home countries.

The U.S.-led International Coalition is providing logistical support for the transfers and help with repatriation efforts, but apparently could not get started on that process in previous years while the prisoners were still in Syria.

2. Why Can the US Not Trust a Trusted Government in Damascus to Keep ISIS Militants Imprisoned? 

Back in November US President Donald Trump welcomed Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa to the White House. Soon after the meeting, the US Treasury Department announced the lifting of sanctions, with Congress later fully repealing Caesar Act sanctions. And Syria signed a political cooperation declaration with the global coalition to defeat ISIL (ISIS).

Yet the US now says it must move ISIS out of the country en masse in order to prevent a breakout. There is no talk of reimposing sanctions.

3. Is the U.S. Withdrawing From Syria? 

The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that the US is considering a complete withdrawal from northeastern Syria—despite the fact al-Sharaa is demanding the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) disband. Washington has long partnered with the SDF, and as the WSJ notes, the SDF “helped the U.S. defeat the ISIS caliphate in 2019, were responsible for guarding roughly 9,000 ISIS prisoners in detention facilities across the northeast.”

Indeed, as the Kurds are forced back, there are already reports of prison breakouts and releases at sites housing tens of thousands of inmates. And there are sightings of the black flag flying once again:

The US is partnering with the al-Sharaa government despite it not ever making a serious effort to integrate the anti-ISIS Kurdish fighters in the government:

So…the US partners with al-Sharaa who cannot be trusted with ISIS prisoners and who attacks the US partner SDF. And the US, ostensibly in Syria to defeat ISIS, is just going to peace out? Help it make sense.

4. The US No Longer Supports the Kurds. 

Yes, Levant viceroy Tom Barrack announced on Tuesday that “the situation has fundamentally changed.” You bet it has.

Here’s Barrack’s full statement:

And here’s the meat of his “reasoning”:

Syria now has an acknowledged central government that has joined the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS (as its 90th member in late 2025), signaling a westward pivot and cooperation with the US on counterterrorism. This shifts the rationale for the US-SDF partnership: the original purpose of the SDF as the primary anti-ISIS force on the ground has largely expired, as Damascus is now both willing and positioned to take over security responsibilities, including control of ISIS detention facilities and camps.

Okay. Let’s make sure we have this straight to this point.

  • The US is ending support for the Kurdish SDF because former Al-Qaeda headchopper al-Sharaa is now a good guy and he’s going to partner against ISIS.
  • But the former head chopper cannot be trusted against ISIS and the head chopper band is already getting back together again.
  • So the US is transferring some ISIS prisoners to Iraq while also considering an end to the stated mission of defeating ISIS in Syria.

Do we have that about right? So what’s the missing plot point(s)? Well here’s one report that ties it altogether. According to SDF sources, Barrack’s offer to the Kurds was this: either join ISIS in attacking Iran-aligned groups in Iraq or the US will withdraw support and allow the Turks and al-Sharaa government in Syria to overrun them. 

5. Why Is the US Shifting ISIS to Iraq at the Same Time It Is Upping Pressure on Baghdad?

Reuters reported on Friday that Washington is threatening to block Iraq’s access to its own oil revenue held in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York if representatives of Iran-supported Shia groups are included in the next government. Here’s The Cradle with more detail: 

…the US government has restricted the flow of dollars to Iraqi banks on several occasions in recent years, raising the price of imports for Iraqi consumers and making it difficult for Iraq to pay for desperately needed natural gas imports from Iran.

However, this is the first time the US has threatened to cut off the flow of dollars from the New York Federal Reserve to the Central Bank of Iraq.

Officials in Washington can threaten Baghdad in this way because the country was forced to place all revenues from oil sales into an account at the New York Fed following the US military’s invasion of the country in 2003.

This gives Washington strong leverage against Baghdad, as oil revenue accounts for 90 percent of the Iraqi government’s budget.

Is it just a coincidence that Iraq is on the receiving end of thousands of ISIS members as the US/Israel sets its sights on Baghdad? Probably not: 

Let’s also recall that back in May Iraq released more than 19,000 prisoners under an amnesty law designed to relieve pressure on its overcrowded prison system. Inexplicably included were thousands convicted of being members of ISIS.

And Al-Sharaa’s government in Damascus is kindly pausing some hostilities to help the US move ISIS members to Iraq: 

6. Will the US use Syria to attack Iraq? 

Back in November Barrack said that “Damascus will now actively assist us in confronting and dismantling the remnants of ISIS, the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps), Hamas, Hizballah, and other terrorist networks.”

Well, they clearly aren’t dismantling ISIS, but it does appear as though the deal against the Resistance groups still stands.

There are reports that al-Sharaa’s forces are already beginning to target Iraq:

Resistance forces are preparing to respond:

And just in time comes the return of former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The country’s dominant political bloc announced Saturday it is nominating al-Maliki as its PM candidate following Mohammed Shia al-Sudani’s decision to step aside despite his bloc winning the largest number of seats in November’s election.

We’ll see if al-Maliki’s second go round is smoother than the first when ISIS invaded western Iraq and conquered large parts of the country. It’s not looking good. Here’s the Stimson Center stating the obvious: 

For Baghdad, the problem is clear: Many elements within the Syrian government’s forces are former ISIS militants or fighters with extremist backgrounds, and they are steadily advancing toward border areas. In response, Iraqi state media confirmed on January 18 that additional Iran-aligned Popular Mobilizatin Front (PMF) units have been deployed along the Syria-Iraq border in Nineveh, while Iraqi army units have also been stationed along Anbar’s frontier. The prospect of these two ideologically driven forces confronting each other along Iraq’s border is not merely a security concern — it is potentially catastrophic.

That the fighting in Syria coincides with ongoing U.S. pressure on Baghdadto disarm Iran-backed militias while leaving Syrian Sunni jihadists free to operate and advance toward the border is not only unrealistic; it is strategically naive. For Iraq and Tehran, any such expectation would be treated with disbelief. Baghdad cannot consider reducing the leverage of its armed proxies without concrete guarantees that Syrian extremist elements will be contained, or the country risks turning the border into the next active battlefield.

“Unrealistic.” “Strategically naive.” As always, it depends what Washington’s goals are. If it’s to create a mess in Iraq that will add to the number of hostile US-backed groups on Iran’s borders, perhaps it’s not so naive. Horribly destructive, but not naive. Could it have major downsides for American corporations making money in Iraq? Sure.

In that vein, this prediction, which we linked to last year, unfortunately appears to be on track: 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

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