Maps showing the territories of the Kurds and the Islamic State


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Since I think it useful to have a rough geographical understanding of the situation, I have been digging around to find some maps that will outline the territories controlled by the both the Kurds and the Islamic State (also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS]), including the areas of dispute. This link provides the best selection I’ve found so far.

Based on these maps, I wonder when ISIS will start moving into next door Iran, as its western regions are adjacent to their present holdings.

Share

15 comments

  • Don Major

    Thanks for digging this up, Bob.

    Following the news without a map is like playing Monopoly without a board.

  • Pzatchok

    I don’t think they will move into Iran.

    Iran is supporting them financially and militarily.

    Iran hopes and is working towards being the center of power in the new caliphate.

    If ISIL moves on them ISIL will need to find a new source of funding and weapons.

    Tactically ISIL is just taking the low hanging fruit of the territory. They got stopped in Syria and decided to reach into Iraq for a little extra land and possibly manpower and funding. As they “win” this undefended land the low intelligence trouble makers in the middle east join them in hopes of having a little glory rub off on them.
    As soon as they gain an enemy equal to them they will lose and lose fast everything they have gained.

    If the Kurds play this right they could be the big winners. Eventually ISIL will attack them and that will give the Kurds the last thing they need to take more land, a reason.
    The Kurds are finally at peace and like it. They are organized and are forming their own army funded by themselves.
    They could take the opportunity to solidify their positions and take more land in Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. Eventually asking for and getting their own nation state.

    Essentially Iraq doesn’t have an Army. At least nothing worth noting. ISIL taking land in Iraq is about as hard as walking down the road. But Iraq will eventually get organized, get help and get working on taking back its land before it has to fight the Kurds for it later.

  • Cotour

    Obama, while he apparently has authorized some level of military action to protect the Yazidi people in effect has just voted “present” again and IMO and will ultimately fail in his efforts. I believe he was dragged to take some kind of action, more based in public perception than in the stated purpose of the action. This president reacts and does not decisively act based in a proper and strong philosophy.

    Not a leader, can never be a leader, can never rise objectively above himself, as all “successful” presidents must do, and will always be a victim of his faulty foundation and bankrupt philosophy and will only be remembered as the president that delivered (or attempted to deliver) Americas sovereignty to the globalists / One World Government adherents. Which is a sad and sick outcome for the great social experiment that is America. But that is the nature of power, without sticking to the road map the only outcome can be perversion and abuse of power and the usurping of the individuals freedoms.

  • Cotour

    What a contrast, above we have a story about a place where the worst of the worst that humanity is capable of is ongoing and below we have a story about a very high and civilized musical performance in the most civilized of places. These are certainly the two ends of the potential spectrum of humanity, I say again, what a contrast.

  • Maybe I should have rephrased and instead asked: When will Iran begin moving into territories captured by ISIS? That I think is the more correct analysis.

  • Kelly Starks

    >…Iran is supporting them financially and militarily.

    Actually Iran is supporting a competing army and terrorist org. They rae horrified that ISIS is conjuring Iraq faster then they are, and were talking with Maliky Head of Iraq (widly seen as Iran’s puppet ) for permission to come in a defend Iraq from ISIS.

    Yes, this is so not going well.

  • Kelly Starks

    Obama has been pretty open about thinking the US is the evil in the world, and our leadership is what causes the big problems in the world. So he disengaged us and set off these explosions…
    …but he still has the faith that only more disengagement can help.

    ;/

  • wodun

    “I don’t think they will move into Iran.

    Iran is supporting them financially and militarily.”

    ISIS does have its roots in the Iraq war. They were being run out of Syria with support of Assad and also Iran by proxy. Iran was using other terror groups aligned with Al Sadr in Eastern Iraq. Our troops were being attacked from East and West by terror groups supported by Syria and Iran that took advantage of the Sunni Shia divide.

    ISIS was largely defeated in the war and were pushed back into Syria but while Iran and Syria were motivated by a desire to see the USA fail, ISIS was motivated by the desire for an Islamic caliphate. When the Arab Spring turned its gaze to Syria, ISIS turned against their masters and joined with other Islamic militants to overthrow the government and create the caliphate.

    Syria, Libya, and the Arab Spring in general illustrate how bizarre our foreign policy is under Obama. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we fought against Islamic militants but we worked with these groups to overthrow the government in Libya and we tried to do the same in Syria. But it isn’t just bizarre for us, Iran and Syria now have an enemy in common with us, ISIS, who was once their proxy terror group used to wage war against us.

    We may see things get stranger still if we partner with Iran and Syria to fight against the Islamic militants. None of this helps at all with efforts to prevent Iran from getting nukes.

  • wodun

    And Obama has taken steps to prevent future Presidents from having the tools necessary to confront these problems, not just in terms of the military but also by destroying relationships with our allies.

  • Cotour

    I think our allies understand that they have to wait out this particular president as do the people of America. Remember, America makes a good enemy and a bad friend.

    It remains to be seen how much America will be dialed down. And if you step back and look at it over time the disabling and the surrender of sovereignty of America has been the theme of the last big government administrations of the last four presidents, enemies of the Constitution and the people and puppets of the multinational corporations ALL. They can’t help it that’s what happens inside of the Washington Beltway.

  • Kelly Starks

    Agreed – but I fear how much damage to the world and the country will happen while we all wait out the Obama era.

  • wodun

    “I think our allies understand that they have to wait out this particular president as do the people of America. ”

    But at the same time everyone now knows that America can only be counted on for four or eight years at a time depending on who the President is. There is no longer the assurance that Presidents will honor treaties, commitments, and old alliances.

    Obama wants Israel to act unilaterally and make concessions in the absence of Palestinian desire for peace and the recognition that Israel and Jews in general have a right to exist. In exchange, Obama offers Israel security assurances, just like we did Ukraine. It is meaningless. Not only can Obama not be counted on to keep his promise while in office, no future President can be counted on to keep Obama’s promises.

    Obama has ruined the credibility of our country by alienating allies and siding closer to our enemies. I think this is the only part of Obama’s foreign policy that is part of an over arching strategy on how to deal with the world.

  • Dick Eagleson

    Correct. ISIS is the amalgamation of Sunni Salafists fighting Iran’s stooge Assad. Iran, far from backing ISIS, is backing the other side. So the idea of ISIS attempting, at some point, to acquire Iranian territory is hardly far-fetched.

  • Kelly Starks

    Big big agree Wodum

  • Kelly Starks

    AAAHHHHH…

    :(

    Yes, except you forgot the White House slipped and tacitly admitted they decided to accept a nuclear weapon equipped Iran. Intel groups are now not debating if they could get them, but if they have them already or it their are a couple months left.

    Yeah, a ISIS IRAN war with nukes, while doing wide scale genocide and culture cleansing of even blasphemous archeological materials and sites.

    Lots of fun…

Leave a Reply

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