The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy
Kenneth Katzman
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
Christopher M. Blanchard
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
Carla E. Humud
Analyst in Middle Eastern and African Affairs
Rhoda Margesson
Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy
Alex Tiersky
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
October 22, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43612


The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

Summary
The Islamic State is a transnational Sunni Islamist insurgent and terrorist group that has expanded
its control over areas of parts of Iraq and Syria since 2013. It threatens the governments of both
countries and potentially several other countries in the region, and has drawn increased attention
from the international community. There is debate over the degree to which the Islamic State
organization might represent a direct terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland or to U.S. facilities and
personnel in the region.
The forerunner of the Islamic State (IS) was part of the insurgency against coalition forces in Iraq,
and the organization has in the years since the 2011 U.S. withdrawal from Iraq expanded its
control over significant areas of both Iraq and Syria. The Islamic State has thrived in the
disaffected Sunni tribal areas of Iraq and in the remote provinces of Syria torn by the civil war.
Since early 2014, Islamic State-led forces, supported by Sunni Arab tribalists and groups linked to
ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, have advanced along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers,
seizing multiple population centers including Mosul, one of Iraq’s largest cities. Since then, IS
forces have massacred Syrian adversaries and Iraqi civilians, often from ethnic or religious
minorities, and recently executed two American journalists who the group had captured while
they were working in Syria. As of October 2014, Islamic State fighters also have come close to
capturing a key Kurdish enclave in northern Syria. The Islamic State’s tactics have drawn the ire
of the international community, increasing U.S. attention on Iraq’s political problems and on the
civil war in Syria.
On September 10, President Obama announced a series of actions intended to “degrade, and
ultimately destroy” the Islamic State organization. The United States is leading and seeking to
expand a multilateral coalition that is undertaking direct military action, providing advice,
training and equipment for partner ground forces in Iraq and Syria, gathering and sharing
intelligence, and using financial measures against the Islamic State. The objective of these
measures is to progressively shrink the geographic and political space, manpower, and financial
resources available to the organization.
At the same time, the U.S. effort to show progress against the Islamic State, and the recruitment
of regional partners, raises questions of whether the U.S. mission and commitment might expand.
The Administration has ruled out deploying combat forces to either Iraq or Syria, but it has not
necessarily ruled out providing forward aircraft controllers, additional military advisors, or other
related ground military assets. Some experts assert that coalition partners inside Iraq and Syria—
Iraqi government forces and select Syrian opposition groups—are too weak to defeat the Islamic
State and will eventually require help from U.S. combat troops. Several of the regional coalition
members apparently seek an expansion of the U.S.-led mission to include an effort to oust
President Bashar al Asad of Syria, arguing that the Islamic State cannot be defeated until the
Syrian political situation is altered.
For details on Islamic State operations in Iraq and U.S. policy toward Iraq since the 2003 U.S.
invasion, see CRS Report RS21968, Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights, by Kenneth
Katzman. For further information on the Islamic State’s operations in Syria, see CRS Report
RL33487, Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response, coordinated by Christopher M.
Blanchard.

Congressional Research Service

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

Contents
The Islamic State ............................................................................................................................. 1
Background................................................................................................................................ 2
The Situation in Iraq ........................................................................................................................ 2
Iraq Government Alterations ..................................................................................................... 4
The Situation in Syria ...................................................................................................................... 5
U.S. Responses and Options ............................................................................................................ 7
U.S. Strategy Unveiled .............................................................................................................. 7
Strategy Implementation ............................................................................................................ 8
Advice, Training, and Intelligence Gathering ..................................................................... 8
Airstrikes ............................................................................................................................. 9
Weapons Sales to Iraq ......................................................................................................... 9
Humanitarian Airdrops ........................................................................................................ 9
Building Up a Local Partner Force in Syria ...................................................................... 10
Combat Deployments? ...................................................................................................... 11
What Has the Strategy Achieved to Date? ............................................................................... 11
International Coalition ............................................................................................................. 13
Turkey ............................................................................................................................... 14
Saudi Arabia ...................................................................................................................... 14
Jordan ................................................................................................................................ 15
Europe and Other Allies .................................................................................................... 16
Iranian Involvement in the Iraq Crisis ............................................................................... 17
Selected Additional Issues Raised by the Crisis ............................................................................ 20
Humanitarian Impact and Response ........................................................................................ 20
Responses to Threats to U.S. Personnel, Facilities, and Citizens ............................................ 21
Possible Questions for Congressional Consideration .................................................................... 23

Figures
Figure 1. Iraq, Syria, and Regional Unrest .................................................................................... 18
Figure 2. Evolution of IS/ISIL and Extremist Groups in Iraq and Syria, 2002-2014 .................... 19

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 24

Congressional Research Service

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

The Islamic State
The Islamic State (IS, aka the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL/ISIS) is a transnational
Sunni Islamist insurgent and terrorist group that has expanded its control over areas of
northwestern Iraq and northeastern Syria since 2013, threatening the security of both countries
and drawing increased attention from the international community. The Islamic State has thrived
in the disaffected Sunni Muslim-inhabited areas of Iraq and in the remote provinces of Syria torn
by the civil war. The Islamic State’s tactics have drawn the ire of the international community,
increasing U.S. attention on Iraq’s political problems and on the civil war in Syria.
Although the Islamic State is considered a direct threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East, it is
unclear if it currently poses a significant direct threat to U.S. homeland security. In September
2014, then-National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen stated that the group poses
“a direct and significant threat to us—and to Iraqi and Syrian civilians—in the region and
potentially to us here at home.”1 Olsen said that the group’s " strategic goal is to establish an
Islamic caliphate through armed conflict with governments it considers apostate—including Iraq,
Syria, and the United States." Olsen further said that "we have no credible information that ISIL
is planning to attack the U.S.," and highlighted potential threats posed by foreign fighters with
Western passports. According to Olsen, U.S. counterterrorism officials "remain mindful of the
possibility that an ISIL-sympathizer—perhaps motivated by online propaganda—could conduct a
limited, self-directed attack here at home with no warning." However, Olsen noted that, "In our
view, any threat to the U.S. homeland from these types of extremists is likely to be limited in
scope and scale." A CIA spokesperson provided an updated estimate of the IS organization's size
in September 2014, saying the group could muster 20,000 to 31,500 individuals. Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee on
September 16 that two-thirds of the Islamic State organization's personnel remain in Syria. U.S.
officials report that as many as 15,000 foreign fighters from 80 countries have travelled to Syria,
including more than 1,000 Europeans, and more than 100 U.S. citizens, with approximately 12
Americans believed to be currently fighting there.
Statements and media materials released by the Islamic State reflect an uncompromising,
exclusionary worldview and a relentless ambition. Statements by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and
Islamic State spokesman Abu Mohammed al Adnani feature sectarian calls for violence and
identify Shiites, non-Muslims, and unsupportive Sunnis as enemies in the group’s struggle to
establish “the Islamic State” and to revive their vision of “the caliphate.”2 The group describes
Iraqi Shiites derogatorily as “rejectionists” and “polytheists” and paints the Iraqi government as a
puppet of Iran. Similar ire is aimed at Syrian Alawites and the Asad government, although some
sources allege that operatives for the Islamic State and its antecedents have benefitted from
evolving financial and security arrangements with Damascus that started during the 2003-2011
U.S. military presence in Iraq.
In July 2012, Al Baghdadi warned U.S. leaders that “the mujahidin have set out to chase the
affiliates of your armies that have fled.... You will see them in your own country, God willing.

1 Remarks at the Brookings Institution by NCTC Director Matthew G. Olsen, September 3, 2014.
2 OSC Report GMP20130409405003, “ISI Emir Declares ISI, Al-Nusrah Front: ‘Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,’”
translated from Ansar al Mujahideen Network, April 9, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
1

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

The war with you has just begun.”3 In January 2014, Al Baghdadi threatened the United States
directly, saying, “Know, O defender of the Cross, that a proxy war will not help you in the
Levant, just as it will not help you in Iraq. Soon, you will be in direct conflict—God permitting—
against your will.”4 English language propaganda and recruiting material released by the group in
connection with its recent executions of U.S. citizens James Foley and Stephen Sotloff suggest
the group is attempting to portray itself as responding to U.S. aggression, a posture adopted by its
predecessors and now rivals in Al Qaeda.
Background
The Islamic State’s ideological and organizational roots lie in the forces built and led by the late
Abu Musab al Zarqawi in Iraq from 2002 through 2006—Tawhid wal Jihad (Monotheism and
Jihad) and Al Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers (aka Al Qaeda in Iraq, or AQ-I). Following
Zarqawi’s death at the hands of U.S. forces in June 2006, AQ-I leaders repackaged the group as a
coalition known as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). ISI lost its two top leaders in 2010 and was
weakened, but not eliminated, by the time of the U.S. withdrawal in 2011. Under the leadership of
Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim al Badri al Samarra’i (aka Abu Bakr al Baghdadi),5 ISI rebuilt its
capabilities. By early 2013, the group was conducting dozens of deadly attacks a month inside
Iraq. The precise nature of ISI’s relationship to Al Qaeda leaders from 2006 onward is unclear. In
recent months, Islamic State leaders have stated their view that their group “is not and has never
been an offshoot of Al Qaeda,”6 and that, given that they view themselves as a state and a
sovereign political entity, they have given leaders of the Al Qaeda organization deference rather
than pledges of obedience.
In April 2013, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi announced his intent to merge his forces in Iraq and Syria
with those of the Syria-based Jabhat al Nusra, under the name the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant (ISIL/ISIS). Jabhat al Nusra and Al Qaeda leaders rejected the merger, underscoring
growing tensions among Sunni extremists in the region.
Additional analysis can be found in: CRS Report RL33487, Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview
and U.S. Response
, coordinated by Christopher M. Blanchard; and CRS Report RS21968, Iraq:
Politics, Governance, and Human Rights
, by Kenneth Katzman.
The Situation in Iraq
Many observers initially assessed that the Iraqi government was able to contain an IS-led
insurrection in Iraq’s Anbar Province that captured the city of Fallujah and parts of the provincial
capital of Ramadi in January 2014. Such forecasts were upended on June 10, 2014, when the
Islamic State captured the northern city of Mosul amid mass surrenders and desertions by ISF
officers and personnel. According to one expert, about 60 out of 243 Iraqi army combat battalions

3 OSC Report GMP20120721586002, “Islamic State of Iraq Amir Calls on Sunni Tribes to ‘Repent,’” July 21, 2012.
4 OSC Report TRR2014011980831299, “Al-Furqan Establishment Releases Audio Statement by ISIL Emir
Condemning ‘War’ Against Group,” translated from Al Minbar al I’lami Jihadist Forum, January 19, 2014.
5 Al Baghdadi reportedly was arrested and detained by U.S. forces in Iraq.
6 OSC Report TRN2014051234500562, “Al-Furqan Releases ISIL Al-Adnani’s Message Criticizing Al-Zawahiri,
Refusing to Leave Syria,” Twitter, May 11-12, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
2

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

could not be accounted for.7 The Islamic State offensive was reportedly joined, supported, or
enabled by Sunni tribal fighters, former members of the late Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party and
military, and other Sunni residents.8 The Sunni support for the offensive, despite reservations
among many Sunnis about the Islamic State’s brutal tactics against opponents and its intention to
impose its version of Islamic law, appeared to reflect broad Sunni dissatisfaction with the
government of Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki.9
After taking Mosul, the IS-led fighters advanced to Saddam’s hometown of Tikrit and other cities,
and into Diyala Province, which has roughly equal numbers of Sunnis and Shiites. In the course
of the offensive, IS and allied fighters looted banks, freed prisoners, and reportedly captured a
substantial amount of U.S.-supplied military equipment, such as HMMWVs (“Humvees”) and
artillery equipped with Global Positioning System (GPS) targeting systems.10 Islamic State-led
fighters captured the city of Tal Afar west of Mosul on June 16 and reached the outskirts of
Baqubah, capital of Diyala, about 38 miles northeast of Baghdad, by June 17. In mid-July, IS
members in Mosul reportedly ordered remaining Christians there to leave the city, and most
apparently complied.11 After initially establishing a relatively quiet front line with territory
controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and its peshmerga militia fighters, IS-
led fighters went on the offensive against Kurdish-controlled territory in early August, as
discussed below.
Shiite militias mobilized to try to help the government prevent IS forces from reaching Baghdad.
The Iraqi capital is reportedly about 80% Shiite-inhabited, and many Shiites there and from
elsewhere volunteered for militia service—in part answering a call by Iraq’s leading Shiite cleric,
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani—to help the ISF. With support from these militias, the government
forces regrouped to some extent and attempted some unsuccessful limited counterattacks on Tikrit
and cities near it.
The ISF collapse in the north enabled the peshmerga (Kurdish militia) to capture Kirkuk and
large nearby oil fields abandoned by the ISF. The Kurds have long sought to control that oil-rich
region, which they claim is historic Kurdish territory, and to affiliate the province with their
autonomous region run by a Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). On July 11, peshmerga
reportedly seized control of two key oil fields near Kirkuk from a state-controlled company.
Many experts assert that the Kurds are unlikely to willingly return control of Kirkuk and related
areas to the central government.12 The peshmerga gains prompted renewed discussion among
KRG leaders about seeking outright independence from Iraq. In early July, KRG President
Masoud Barzani asked the KRG parliament to plan a referendum on independence.13 However,
Kurdish leaders subsequently stated that the crisis the KRG faces from the Islamic State
organization has caused KRG leaders to shelve the independence effort, at least temporarily. KRG

7 Michael Knights in “Iraq’s Dire Situation,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, June 17, 2014.
8 Tim Arango, “Uneasy Alliance Gives Insurgents an Edge in Iraq,” New York Times, June 19, 2014.
9 “Unlikely Allies Aid Militants in Iraq,” Wall Street Journal, June 16, 2014.
10 Mitchell Prothero, “Iraqi Army Remains on Defensive as Extent of June Debacle Becomes Clearer,” McLatchey
Wire Service, July 14, 2014.
11 Alissa Rubin, “ISIS Expels Last Iraqi Christians from Mosul,” New York Times, July 19, 2014.
12 Author conversations with expert on the Iraqi Kurds, June-August 2014.
13 For more information on the Kurds and the potential for the Iraqi Kurds to declare independence, see CRS Insight
IN10105, The Kurds and Possible Iraqi Kurdish Independence, by Jim Zanotti and Kenneth Katzman.
Congressional Research Service
3

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

leaders probably view the independence issue primarily as leverage in disputes with Baghdad,
such as those over KRG oil exports and revenue-sharing.
The indirect benefits to the Kurds of the Islamic State offensive proved illusory when Islamic
State-led forces advanced into territory controlled by the peshmerga in early August. In the face
of superior Islamic State firepower, the relatively lightly armed Kurdish forces retreated from
several towns inhabited mostly by Christians and other Iraqi minorities, particularly the Yazidis.
The Yazidis are mostly Kurdish speaking and practice a mix of ancient religions, including
Zoroastrianism, which held sway in Iran before the advent of Islam.14 Fearing Islamic State
threats to execute them if they did not convert to Islam, an estimated 35,000–50,000 Yazidis fled
to Sinjar Mountain.15 By August 8, Islamic State-led fighters had advanced to within about 40
miles of the KRG capital of Irbil, causing some flight from the city, and heightening U.S. concern
about the security of U.S. diplomatic and military personnel there. Reports of human rights
violations by the Islamic State emerged, including murder, kidnappings, forced conversions, and
physical and sexual assault.16 Islamic State-led forces captured Iraq’s largest dam, the Mosul
Dam, as well, which Kurdish leaders assert could have been damaged or used by the Islamic State
to flood wide areas of northern and central Iraq.
Subsequently, U.S. and allied efforts have sought to assist the ISF and peshmerga reverse the IS
gains. Some successes have been achieved in northern Iraq, whereas the ISF has continued to lose
ground in Anbar Province and IS infiltration and mortar fire on Baghdad has increased in spite of
the U.S.-led campaign to assist the ISF. Specifics are discussed below.
Iraq Government Alterations
The crisis contributed to major change in Iraq’s leadership, in part an Iraqi response to stated U.S.
concerns that Prime Minister Maliki’s policies had alienated the Sunni Arab community.
Elections for the Iraqi Council of Representatives (COR) were held on April 30, 2014, beginning
the process of forming a new government. By informal agreement, the COR speakership is held
by a Sunni Arab; the largely ceremonial presidency is held by a Kurd; and the powerful executive
post of Prime Minister is held by a Shiite Arab. Several Iraqi factions – as well as some within
Maliki’s core coalition – opposed a third term for Maliki as Prime Minister in spite of the
dominant performance of the Maliki-led “State of Law” coalition in the election. In June 2014,
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called for the Iraqi people “to find leadership... that is
prepared to be inclusive and share power.”17
In July, the COR selected as COR Speaker Salim al Jabburi (a Sunni), and two deputies, and
veteran Kurdish figure Fouad Masoum as Iraq’s President. On August 11, in line with the
constitutional responsibilities of the president, Masoum formally asked Haydar al Abbadi, a 62-
year old member of Maliki’s Da’wa Party, to become Prime Minister-designate. Al Abbadi’s
selection attracted public support from U.S. officials as well as from senior figures in Iran,
causing support for Maliki’s initial challenge of the Abbadi designation to collapse. The

14 Ishaan Tharoor, “Who Are the Yazidis?” Washington Post, August 7, 2014.
15 UNOCHA, “Iraq: OCHA Flash Update: Iraq Crisis—Significant Displacement from Sinjar,” No. 2, August 4, 2014;
Assessment Capacities Project, “Humanitarian Implications of Violence in Northern and Central Iraq,” August 7, 2014.
16 UNAMI, Public Information Office, “UN Gravely Concerned About Situation in Northern Iraq; Calls for Urgent
Response,” August 7, 2014.
17 “Kerry Says U.S. Wants Iraqis to Find Inclusive Leadership,” Reuters, June 22, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
4

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

designation gave him 30 days (until September 10) to form and achieve parliamentary
confirmation for a new cabinet. His work program and all but two of his ministerial nominations
were approved by the COR on September 8, enabling Abbadi to assume the prime ministership.
The two powerful security posts of Interior and Defense Minister were not immediately filled, but
Abbadi did achieve confirmation on October 18 of Mohammad Ghabban, who is linked to a
Shiite militia organization (Badr Organization), as Interior Minister. That selection could
potentially give many Iraqi Sunnis pause as to whether the Abbadi government will prove less
sectarian than that of Maliki, although the same day the COR also confirmed Khalid al-Ubaydi, a
Sunni ex-military officer during Saddam’s rule, as Defense Minister. On September 10, 2014, in
conjunction with a visit by Secretary of State John Kerry, Abbadi proposed to recruit Sunnis to a
new “national guard” force that would protect Sunni-inhabited areas that might be taken back
from Islamic State control.
The Situation in Syria18
Since 2013, Islamic State fighters have used Syria both as a staging ground for attacks in Iraq and
as a parallel theater of operations.19 In early 2014, IS fighters reestablished control in most areas
of the northern Syrian province of Raqqah and reasserted itself to the east in Dayr az Zawr, a
province rich in oil and gas resources bordering the Anbar region of Iraq. Since late 2013, the
Islamic State has controlled several oilfields in Dayr az Zawr and reportedly has drawn revenue
from oil sales to the Syrian government. With the proceeds, the group was able to maintain
operational independence from Al Qaeda’s leadership and pay competitive salaries to its fighters.
The Islamic State derived additional revenue in Syria by imposing taxes on local populations and
demanding a percentage of the funds involved in humanitarian and commercial operations in
areas under its control.20 The Islamic State also has operated north of Dayr az Zawr in Hasakah
province, establishing a connection to Iraq’s Nineveh province that it was apparently able to
exploit in its eventual advance towards Mosul.
IS gains in Iraq are likely to facilitate the flow of weapons and fighters into eastern Syria to the
Islamic State and other groups, both because of the publicity from these gains and because of the
supply lines they open. Captured U.S.-origin military equipment provided to Iraqi security forces
has appeared in photos reportedly taken in Syria and posted on social media outlets. Anecdotal
reporting suggests that the group relies on brutality and intimidation to manage communities
under its control, and in some areas partnerships with local armed groups appear to facilitate IS
control.
At some point, the Islamic State’s expanding theater of conflict could subject it to overextension.
IS gains may also motivate the Iraqi and Syrian governments to cooperate more closely in
seeking to counter the group, potentially altering the dynamics in both conflicts.
Further IS advances in Iraq could weaken the Syrian’s government’s ability to hold ground in
contested areas, as some Iraqi Shiite militants who had previously fought alongside Asad forces

18 Prepared by Carla Humud, Analyst in Middle Eastern and African Affairs. For more information see CRS Report
RL33487, Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response, coordinated by Christopher M. Blanchard.
19 “Syria War Fueling Attacks by al Qaeda in Iraq, Officials Say,” New York Times, August 15, 2013.
20 “Sunni Fighters Gain as They Battle 2 Governments, and Other Rebels,” New York Times, June 11, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
5

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

return home to combat the IS.21 In mid-June 2014, Syrian forces conducted air strikes against IS-
held areas of Raqqah and Hasakah in coordination with the Iraqi government, according to the
London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.22 Syria later struck IS targets near a border
crossing between the two states and continues to conduct airstrikes on IS positions in Raqqah
province. IS fighters in late July and early August escalated attacks on government army and air
force bases in northeastern Syria, capturing several, seizing armaments, and executing captured
Syrian military personnel.23
It is unclear what impact IS gains in Iraq would have outside of northeastern Syria. At least half
of Syria-based IS fighters are Syrian or Iraqi tribesmen, according to a Syrian IS defector.24 Like
other segments of the Syrian opposition, Syrian tribes have at times been reluctant to expand
hostilities against government forces beyond their own local areas.25 The Islamic State to date has
concentrated its forces in Syria’s northeast, and has largely avoided regular confrontations in the
country’s main urban areas in Syria’s western half. In early August, Syrian rebels who had
reportedly pledged allegiance to the Islamic State clashed with Lebanese Armed Forces for
control of the Lebanese town of Arsal, 13 km west of the Syrian border. However, some observers
note that there is no indication that the group coordinated its attack in advance with IS
leadership.26
Some ongoing IS operations in Syria are focused in Dayr az Zawr, as the group fights to
consolidate its supply lines to the city of Abu Kamal, a key node along the Syria-Iraq border.
Press and social media reports suggest that IS, by mid-July, had seized large sectors of the
provincial capital of Dayr az-Zawr, although some neighborhoods remain contested by the regime
and other rebel groups.27 Following the IS declaration of a caliphate, many local and tribal rebel
forces surrendered to the group and withdrew from their positions, further expanding the IS
presence in the Dayr az-Zawr countryside.28 Others resisted the Islamic State’s advance, and were
crushed. Any Iraqi or U.S. efforts to disrupt or sever IS supply lines through Abu Kamal or
between Dayr az Zawr and Mosul could benefit Syrian military and/or Nusra Front forces also
operating in the area. Islamic State fighters also remain engaged in operations against Syrian
armed forces southwest of Raqqah and against a range of armed Syrian opposition groups to the
northeast of Aleppo.
Syrian Kurdish fighters from the People’s Protection Units (known as the YPG) continue to clash
with IS fighters along the border with Iraq and Turkey.29 YPG forces in early August established
security corridors along the Iraqi border, enabling some refugees fleeing IS violence in Iraq to
cross into Kurdish-held areas of Syria, according to a Syrian Kurdish aid worker.30 The Islamic

21 “Seeing Their Gains at Risk, Shiites Flock to Join Militias,” New York Times, June 13, 2014.
22 “Syria Pounds ISIS Bases in Coordination with Iraq,” Daily Star, June 15, 2014.
23 Institute for the Study of War, “Syria Update: July 26-August 7, 2014.”
24 “Sunni Fighters Gain as They Battle 2 Governments and Other Rebels,” New York Times, June 11, 2014.
25 “The Tribal Factor in Syria’s Rebellion: A Survey of Armed Tribal Groups in Syria.” The Jamestown Foundation,
June 27, 2013.
26 Institute for the Study of War, “The Battle for Arsal,” August 7, 2013.
27 “Syria’s Allies Are Stretched by Widening War,” Wall Street Journal, July 14, 2014; “Resistance Emerges as ISIS
Consolidates in Deir az Zour,” July 15, 2014.
28 Institute for the Study of War, “ISIS Advances in Deir ez Zour,” July 5, 2014.
29 OSC Report EUR2014090645329482, September 6, 2014.
30 OSC Report EUR2014080850721279, August 8, 2014
Congressional Research Service
6

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

State’s siege in September and October of the Syrian-Turkish border town of Kobane/Ayn al Arab
has drawn increasing regional and international attention. More than 150,000 residents of the area
have been driven into Turkey by the fighting, and fears that Islamic State forces would massacre
the predominantly Kurdish defenders and remaining residents of the town have grown over time.
U.S. and coalition airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria since September 23 have largely
focused on “degrading the capacity of (the Islamic State) at its core to project power, to command
itself, to sustain itself, to resource itself.” Subsequent U.S. and coalition strikes against IS forces
near and inside Kobane have destroyed some IS vehicles and personnel, but had not fully
reversed the group’s gains or broken the siege of the town as of October 22.
U.S. Responses and Options
As the Islamic State offensive in Iraq progressed and the group beheaded two American
journalists it had captured, the Obama Administration asserted that the Islamic State constitutes a
threat to U.S. interests that necessitates U.S. intervention. At a NATO summit in Wales during
September 4-5, 2014, the Administration discussed with its allies a broad strategy to counter the
Islamic State’s gains.
U.S. Strategy Unveiled
On September 10, 2014, President Obama elaborated on the evolving strategy in a speech,
explaining that the United States would seek to lead a multilateral coalition to try to “degrade and
ultimately destroy” the Islamic State organization by progressively reducing the geographic and
political space, manpower, and financial resources available to it. The Administration stated that
different members of the coalition would undertake varying measures, including direct military
action, support for partner ground forces in Iraq and Syria, intelligence gathering and sharing, and
financial measures. Many of the actions announced by President Obama are already under way in
Iraq and Syria, as noted below. Among the major points President Obama announced were the
following:31
• The U.S. intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners have
joined the Islamic State organization in Iraq and Syria and that these fighters
could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.
• As of September 2014, the United States had not detected specific Islamic State
plotting against the U.S. homeland, but the group’s leaders have threatened the
United States and its allies.
• U.S. strategy will not involve deployment of U.S. combat troops, but will rely on
strengthening local partners who are fighting Islamic State forces on the ground.
• The United States intended expand airstrikes in Iraq to help the ISF and the
Kurdish peshmerga advance against IS-led forces, and was open to striking IS
targets in Syria.
• The United States intended to increase support for Iraqi and Kurdish forces in
Iraq by providing an additional 475 advisers (beyond the 300 already deployed),

31 White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Statement by the President on ISIL,” September 10, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
7

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

and will support Iraqi efforts to establish a “national guard” to help Iraqi Sunni
Arabs defend themselves from the Islamic State.
• President Obama reiterated an Administration request for Congress to give the
Administration authority to train and equip vetted Syrian rebel forces, which
would serve as the partner ground force of U.S. strategy in Syria. That authority
was since provided as part of the continuing appropriations resolution and is
likely to be revisited by Congress as part of full year appropriations or
authorization legislation. He added that the United States will not coordinate any
actions in Syria with the Asad regime “that terrorizes its own people” and “will
never regain the legitimacy it has lost.”
• Working with international partners, the United States will seek to prevent
Islamic State terrorist attacks by increasing efforts to cut off Islamic State
finances; improving intelligence on the group; strengthening anti-terrorism
defenses; countering the Islamic State’s “warped ideology”; and stemming “the
flow of foreign fighters into and out of the Middle East.”
• The U.S.-led coalition will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to those
displaced by Islamic State offensives, including Sunni and Shiite Muslims and
Christians and members of other religious minorities.
Strategy Implementation
The following sections discuss actions taken by the Administration to implement its strategy
against the Islamic State organization. U.S. strategy is implemented somewhat differently in Iraq
and Syria in that the United States already has a welcoming, organized, and recognized partners
on the ground in the ISF and peshmerga. The U.S. strikes against Islamic State targets and other
terrorist groups in Syria are illuminating several dilemmas faced by the Administration. On the
one hand, Syrian opposition forces who have been fighting the Islamic State welcome U.S. and
coalition assistance in their campaign, but question why the United States does not take military
action against the Asad government or take more robust action to degrade IS capabilities in Syria.
The Administration continues to pressure the Asad government into negotiating with opposition
groups and fulfilling its pledges with regard to chemical weapons, while managing concerns that
the full scale degradation of Islamic State forces in Syria could produce the unintended
consequence of either taking military pressure off the Asad regime or creating opportunities for
other extremist groups such as the Al Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al Nusra to advance. The U.S.
military operation that is implementing the strategy discussed below has been termed “Operation
Inherent Resolve.”
Advice, Training, and Intelligence Gathering
President Obama stated on June 13, 2014, after the Islamic State capture of Mosul, that the Iraqi
government “needs additional support to break the momentum of extremist groups and bolster the
capabilities of Iraqi security forces.”32 A total of about 1,600 U.S. military personnel have been
sent to Iraq since. Of that amount, about 775 are advisers that are assessing and the ISF and
gather intelligence on the Islamic State, working out of “Joint Operations Centers” in Baghdad

32 White House, “Statement by the President on Iraq,” June 13, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
8

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

(U.S.-ISF) and Irbil (U.S.-peshmerga). An additional 820 military personnel have been sent to
help secure the U.S. Embassy and other U.S. facilities in Baghdad and Irbil, to protect evacuation
routes such as the international airport in Baghdad, and to operate surveillance aircraft. The
advisers reportedly have concluded that only about half of all ISF units are sufficiently capable
for U.S. advisers to help them regain captured territory.33
Airstrikes
Citing as an objective stopping the advance on Irbil and reducing the threat to American
diplomats and advisers there, on August 7, 2014, President Obama authorized targeted airstrikes
against Islamic State positions that pose a threat to U.S. personnel or facilities or to alleviate
humanitarian suffering caused by the Islamic State. On September 10, President Obama
announced that strikes would “go beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions
so that we’re hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on the offensive.”
It was subsequently reported that airstrikes would be conducted in Syria as well, in order to
weaken the Islamic State organizations’ ability to support its forces in Iraq. U.S. combat aircraft
and armed unmanned aerial vehicles have conducted several hundred strikes in Iraq (since August
8) and Syria (since September 22), joined since September by coalition partners as discussed
below.
Weapons Sales to Iraq
Since the Islamic State-led capture of Mosul in June, the United States has announced sales of
over 5,000 additional HELLFIRE air-to-surface missiles to Baghdad. Deliveries of U.S.-made F-
16s and Apaches, purchased in 2011 and 2012, are in their early stages. After the Islamic State
move toward Irbil, the Administration reportedly began supplying mostly lighter weaponry and
ammunition directly to the peshmerga, through the Central Intelligence Agency.34 That channel is
a means of adapting to a general policy that requires all U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS, run by
the Defense Department) to be provided to a country’s central government. The ISF has
transferred some of its U.S.-supplied weapons to the peshmerga, and the peshmerga, with U.S.
assistance, has retransferred some weapons and ammunition to Kurdish forces fighting Islamic
State fighters in Syria.35 Kurdish and U.S. officials have said that, as part of a long-term strategy
to drive IS forces back, the peshmerga will require heavy and long range weapons – in part to
counter the Islamic State’s use of captured U.S. weapons.36 Several other countries, such as
Britain, Germany, and France, have been supplying weaponry to the peshmerga.
Humanitarian Airdrops
During early August 2014, the U.S. military conducted airdrops of food and water to those
trapped on Sinjar Mountain. In late August, the U.S. military airdropped humanitarian aid to the

33 Eric Schmitt and Michael Gordon, “U.S. Sees Risks in Assisting a Compromised Iraqi Force,” New York Times, July
14, 2014.
34 Craig Whitlock and Greg Jaffe, “U.S. Directly Arms Kurdish Forces,” Washington Post, August 12, 2014.
35 U.S. Central Command news release. “U.S. Resupplies Kurdish Forces Fighting ISIL Near Kobani.” October 20,
2014.
36 Press briefing by the Director of Operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lt. Gen. William Mayville. August 11, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
9

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

town of Amerli (in eastern Salahuddin Province), inhabited by ethnic Turkmen Shiite Muslims,
which was surrounded by ISIS fighters. In October, U.S. forces airdropped medical supplies as
well as weapons and ammunition to Kurdish fighters defending the city of Kobane in Syria from
an IS assault.
Building Up a Local Partner Force in Syria
Well before the President’s September 10 speech on an anti-Islamic State strategy, Administration
officials had asserted that countering the Islamic State will require dealing in some way with the
group’s branch in Syria. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey on
August 21 asserted that the group could not be defeated without accounting for its Syrian branch,
stating that the group “will have to be addressed on both sides of what is essentially at this point a
nonexistent border.”37 As noted above, the U.S. strategy against the Islamic State’s Syria branch
appears to center on supporting yet-to-be-vetted Syrians, some of whom may be fighting not only
the Islamic State but also Syrian government forces. On September 5, President Obama stated,
With respect to the situation on the ground in Syria, we will not be placing U.S. ground
troops to try to control the areas that are part of the conflict inside of Syria. I don’t think
that’s necessary for us to accomplish our goal. We are going to have to find effective
partners on the ground to push back against ISIL. And the moderate coalition there is one
that we can work with. We have experience working with many of them. They have been, to
some degree, outgunned and outmanned, and that’s why it’s important for us to work with
our friends and allies to support them more effectively.38
President Obama’s requests to Congress for authority and resources to train and equip vetted
members of the Syrian opposition in support of U.S. efforts to combat the Islamic State
organization—reiterated in the President’s September 10 speech—reinvigorated congressional
debate on the subject. Some congressional committees acted to consider the President’s June 2014
request prior to the August congressional recess, and both houses of Congress considered a
revised Administration request in the context of the passage of H.J.Res. 124, the short-term
FY2015 continuing resolution, in September. The FY2015 continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 124,
P.L. 113-164) authorizes the Department of Defense through December 11, 2014 or until the
passage of a FY2015 defense authorization act, to provide overt assistance, including training,
equipment, supplies, and sustainment, to vetted members of the Syrian opposition and other
vetted Syrians for select purposes. As enacted, H.J.Res. 124 contains a temporary authorization
for the training and equipping of vetted Syrians that differs from the Administration’s June and
September requests and from other pending legislation. When Congress returns, Members may be
asked to re-endorse or consider changes to the train and equip authority granted in H.J.Res. 124
during consideration of full-year FY2015 appropriations or defense authorization legislation. For
more on this program and related legislation, see CRS Report R43727, Proposed Train and Equip
Authorities for Syria: In Brief
, by Christopher M. Blanchard and Amy Belasco.39
Advocates of continued U.S. support for select opposition groups in Syria have argued that the
withdrawal or reduction of such assistance would bolster less cooperative or friendly groups.
Advocates have further argued that if the United States withdraws or reduces its support, then it

37 Department of Defense Press Briefing by Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey, August 21, 2014.
38 Remarks by President Obama at NATO Summit Press Conference, September 5, 2014.
39 Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget_amendments.
Congressional Research Service
10

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

may “force” moderate groups to turn to extremist groups for funding and support—thereby
increasing the influence of extremists while reducing U.S. leverage.
Critics of continued or expanded U.S. support have argued that such assistance risks exacerbating
rivalry among opposition groups and reducing the credibility of groups and individuals seen to be
aligned with the United States. Critics of support proposals also have pointed to problems in
ensuring the identity and intentions of end users of provided support and the uses of U.S.-
provided materiel or training.
The purposes, content, and scope of any expanded U.S. or coalition assistance to armed
opposition groups also may be controversial among Syrians. President Obama has suggested that
U.S. engagement will remain focused “narrowly” on assisting Syrians in combatting the Islamic
State, while continuing “to look for opportunities” to support a political resolution to Syria’s
conflict.40 Some Syrian political and military opposition forces appear to resent such a narrow
focus and some have indicated they may insist on broader support for their anti-Asad goals as a
condition of working with a U.S.-backed coalition against the Islamic State.
Combat Deployments?
President Obama has repeatedly ruled out this option.41 He has stated that intervention by U.S.
combat troops is not capable of fixing the underlying political problems that caused the
insurrection. However, comments by Gen. Dempsey at a Senate Armed Services Committee
hearing on September 14, 2014 and since have presented a potentially more complex picture on
this issue.42 At the hearing and in subsequent press interviews, Gen. Dempsey indicated he might
recommend that U.S. advisers in Iraq work directly with Iraqi and peshmerga forces on the
battlefield, for example if there were a decision to try to recapture Mosul from Islamic State
forces. Still, Gen. Dempsey and other Administration officials have distinguished such “close
combat advisory” missions from the introduction of U.S. combat units that would conduct
operations against Islamic State forces. President Obama has not indicated whether he would
approve such a close combat advisory recommendation, were it to be put forward.
What Has the Strategy Achieved to Date?
Experts and officials are debating the effectiveness of the strategy. The Administration has argued
that the strategy will take a long time – measured in many months, not weeks – to reach its
objectives. It asserts that there are distinct achievements, to date. Administration critics argue that
the strategy lacks effective partners who can advance against Islamic State-held territory on the
ground and suffers from a basic contradiction in not confronting the regime of President Asad of
Syria. These critics assert that achieving stated Administration objectives will likely require U.S.
or other ground combat troops and expansion of the mission to include pressuring Asad to accept
a political solution.

40 The President said, “our attitude towards Asad continues to be that you know, through his actions, through using
chemical weapons on his own people, dropping barrel bombs that killed innocent children that he—he has foregone
legitimacy. But when it comes to our policy and the coalition that we're putting together, our focus specifically is on
ISIL. It’s narrowly on ISIL.” President Obama interview with NBC News Meet the Press, September 6, 2014.
41 White House, op. cit.
42 Senate Armed Services Committee. “Hearing on the U.S. Policy Towards Iraq, Syria, and ISIL. September 14, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
11

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

Administration officials assert that the accomplishments of the strategy to date include:
• In Iraq, U.S.-led airstrikes halted the Islamic State advance on Irbil and enabled
the peshmerga and ISF to safely evacuate most of the Yazidi internally displaced
persons (IDPs) from Sinjar mountain.43
• Additional strikes helped peshmerga and ISF forces drive Islamic State fighters
from Mosul Dam, which the Islamic State purportedly could have used to flood
large parts of Iraq. Peshmerga forces have pushed Islamic State forces from
additional parts of northern Iraq in September and early October.
• In September, U.S. airstrikes facilitated efforts by the ISF and Shiite militias to
break an Islamic State siege of the Shiite-inhabited town of Amerli.
• With intensive airstrikes and the airdrop of supplies and weaponry to defenders
in October, the United States and its partners have to date helped prevent the
predominantly Kurdish-inhabited Syrian town of Kobane/Ayn al Arab from
capture by Islamic State forces. Still, Gen. Lloyd Austin, Commander of U.S.
Central Command, which is leading operations in Syria and Iraq, said on October
17 that “It’s highly possible that Kobane may fall.”
Critics of the Administration strategy note some setbacks to the strategy as follows:
• That Islamic State forces have continued to gain control over territory in Iraq’s Al
Anbar province, including seizing the town of Al Hit, and capturing or
encroaching on several ISF military bases in the province. Secretary of Defense
Hagel told journalists in October that “Anbar Province is in trouble. We know
that.”44
• Islamic State gains in Anbar have positioned Islamic State forces to approach
Baghdad and to undermine security in the city – as well as the crucial Baghdad
International Airport - through mortar barrages and infiltration by suicide and
other bombers. Experts say this encroachment might hinder ISF efforts to take
the offensive rather than react to Islamic State maneuvers. Others assert that that
the ISF, while supported by Shiite militias and unlikely to lose Baghdad entirely,
might yet lose parts of the city.45
• The continued ISF loss of territory in Anbar Provinces suggests that there has not
been a significant Iraqi Sunni shift to oppose Islamic State forces directly or to
comprehensively assist ISF units in anti-IS operations.




43 DOD News release, “Obama Praises Success of Humanitarian Operations in Iraq,” August 14, 2014.
44 Kirk Semple and Eric Schmitt. “Islamic State Keeps Up Pressure Near Baghdad as Iraqi Troops Stumble.” New York
Times, October 18, 2014.
45 Eric Schmitt and Michael Gordon, “U.S. Sees Risks in Assisting a Compromised Iraqi Force,” New York Times, July
14, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
12

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy


International Coalition
The outcomes of U.S. strategy might depend on the participation of other actors, both state and
non-state. To implement U.S. strategy, U.S. officials have recruited a coalition of countries to help
defeat the Islamic State, in large part to build international legitimacy for a military campaign and
enlist Sunni help with co-religionists in Iraq and Syria. The Administration has sought - and
received - a range of support from international partners, including participation in the air
campaign against IS forces, assisting Iraqi government and Iraqi Kurdish forces, arming and
training moderate Syrian rebels, increasing intelligence sharing, committing to curb the flow of
fighters and resources to the Islamic State, and providing financial support.46 President Obama
appointed General John Allen as Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter
ISIL in mid-September, and chaired a meeting of the U.N. Security Council in late September,
which addressed this issue.47
As of mid-October, the State Department lists 60 countries as members of the “Coalition to
Degrade and Defeat ISIL.” Many of the countries participating have been involved since 2012 in
response to the evolving conflict in Syria. The participation of the various coalition members, and
summaries of some of their contributions are cited below. 48
The subset of the broad coalition that is attempting to coordinate military operations in Iraq and
Syria faces significant challenges. Past attempts at coordination have exposed rifts among
regional countries, prompting situations in which the common goal of supporting the Syrian
opposition was not enough to overcome other, competing priorities among ostensibly partner
states.49 Relations between Iraq’s government and the Sunni Arab Gulf states have been
consistently strained in the post-Saddam Hussein period, in part because Iraq’s government has
been dominated by Shiite factions politically close to Iran. Strikes by Gulf militaries in Iraq may
prove controversial to the extent that they may be seen by the populations of Gulf countries as
empowering Shiite elements in Iraq. To date, Western and other non-Middle Eastern allies of the
United States, such as Australia, Britain, and France, are undertaking airstrikes in Iraq, and not in
Syria.

46 For a summary of significant foreign contributions to the effort against the Islamic State, see: Justine Drennan. “Who
Has Contributed the Most in the Coalition Against the Islamic State. Foreign Policy, October 14, 2014.
http://complex.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/10/14/whos_contributed_the_most_in_the_coalition_against_the_islamic
_state?wp_login_redirect=0
47 State Department Press Statement, “Announcement of General John Allen as Special Presidential Envoy for the
Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, Press Statement,” September 13, 2014.
48 In February 2012, the Administration helped organize the Friends of Syria Group, a coalition of Western and
regional countries that met periodically to discuss ways to support the Syrian opposition, increase pressure on the Asad
government, and encourage a negotiated settlement between the two sides. The group last met in Saudi Arabia in late
August. The Friends of Syria “Core Group,” also known as the London 11, includes the United States, Egypt, France,
Germany, Italy, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE, and the United Kingdom.
49 Sunni Arab Gulf states have faced internal divisions—Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and UAE in March 2014 withdrew
their ambassadors from Qatar, accusing Doha of pursuing policies at odds with other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
states. At a meeting of the GCC Foreign Ministers Council in late August 2014, some officials claimed to have made
progress in resolving outstanding issues among member states. See “Saudi, UAE and Bahrain Envoys’ Return ‘At Any
Time,’” Gulf Times, August 31, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
13

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

In Syria, it is unclear how potential Sunni coalition partners might assess the effect that bolstering
various Syrian forces against the Islamic State is likely to have on the relative strength of the
Asad regime and its supporters (Iran, Hezbollah, Russia). Potential partners’ calculations about
the costs and benefits of participating in any coalition in Iraq and/or Syria might be affected by
their perceptions of various factors such as the urgency of acting directly, the soundness of U.S.
strategy, the level of U.S. commitment, and potential progress toward political solutions
(particularly in Iraq) that are more inclusive of Sunni Arabs or less conducive to Iranian strategic
goals.
The following sections will discuss the role that selected partner countries are playing in the
coalition, and examine factors that could potentially constrain their participation.
Turkey50
U.S. strategic objectives regarding Turkey, a Sunni-majority country, in connection with efforts to
cooperate against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq appear to include:
• Avoiding attacks on or the destabilization of Turkey;
• Minimizing the use of Turkish territory by extremists; and
• Using Turkish territory and airspace and/or partnering with Turkish forces for military
purposes and to further strengthen and diversify Sunni support within the anti-IS
coalition.
Following the September 20, 2014, release by the Islamic State of 49 hostages associated with the
Turkish consulate in Mosul, Iraq,51 Turkish leaders have indicated willingness to consider deeper
participation in the anti-IS coalition.52 Turkey’s parliament voted on October 2, 2014, to approve
potential military operations in Syria and Iraq launched from Turkey by Turkish or foreign forces.
However, a complicated array of considerations arguably affects Turkish calculations regarding
direct military involvement or the furnishing of its territory or airspace for coalition use. This
includes Turkey’s role to this point in Syria’s protracted conflict, as well as Turkish parliamentary
elections scheduled for June 2015. For a detailed analysis of Turkey’s policy and actions on the
Islamic State issues, see: CRS Report IN10164, Turkey-U.S. Cooperation Against the “Islamic
State”: A Unique Dynamic?
, by Jim Zanotti.
Saudi Arabia53
Saudi Arabia first participated in coalition airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria on
September 22-23 and continues to participate in coalition airstrikes against Islamic State targets.
Most recently, U.S. military sources have reported Saudi fighter aircraft participation in airstrikes

50 Prepared by Jim Zanotti, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs. For more background on Turkey’s dealings with Iraq
and Syria, see CRS Report R41368, Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti.
51 The release reportedly occurred in exchange for Turkey’s release of 180 Islamic State detainees.
52 Turkey already is reportedly allowing the use of its territory and airspace for humanitarian and logistical purposes,
and adopting additional measures to curb the flow of foreign fighters to Syria. Murat Yetkin, “Turkey joins anti-ISIL
coalition, opens İncirlik for logistics ops,” Hurriyet Daily News Online, September 10, 2014.
53 Prepared by Christopher Blanchard, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
14

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

on October 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 19. Some reports suggest that a fighter aircraft contingent of 4
to 6 Saudi F-15 aircraft are being used in these strikes, although U.S. and Saudi authorities have
not commented specifically on the number or types of Saudi aircraft or ordnance used in these
operations. Saudi Arabia also reportedly has agreed to host a U.S. training facility for vetted
Syrians as part of the congressionally endorsed program to develop a force to protect Syrians
from Islamic State attacks and support conditions that will lead to a negotiated settlement in
Syria’s civil war. Saudi Arabia also has made humanitarian contributions to support Syrian and
Iraqi citizens, including a $500 million donation in July 2014 to support displaced Iraqis.
Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has called for international cooperation to combat violent extremist
groups in the Middle East, including the Islamic State. In August 2014, Saudi Grand Mufti Sheikh
Abdelaziz bin Abdullah bin Mohammed Al al Shaykh declared “the ideas of extremism ... and
terrorism” to be the “first enemies of Muslims,” and stated that all efforts to combat Al Qaeda and
the Islamic State were required and allowed because those groups “consider Muslims to be
infidels.” The statement, coupled with state crackdowns on clerics deviating from the
government’s anti-terrorism messaging, signal the kingdom’s desire to undercut claims by the
Islamic State, Al Qaeda, and their followers that support for the groups and their violent attacks is
religiously legitimate. In conjunction with the Saudi government’s expanded efforts to dissuade
Saudi citizens from supporting the Islamic State and other extremist groups, Saudi security
entities continue to arrest cells of individuals suspected of plotting attacks, recruiting, or
fundraising for some terrorist groups.
Aside from training-related assistance, U.S. officials conceivably could seek intelligence and
diplomatic support from Saudi officials and may attempt to leverage the kingdom’s relationships
with Sunni Arab community leaders in western Iraq and eastern Syria in conjunction with efforts
to combat the Islamic State and other terrorist groups there. The kingdom’s vast financial
resources also could be brought to bear in support of displaced Syrian and Iraqi civilians, to
influence Iraqi and Syrian armed groups, or to contribute to the costs of U.S. or other countries’
military operations. The Syria-related “train and equip” authority authorized by Congress in
September 2014 authorizes the U.S. government to accept financial and material contributions for
an assistance or training program for vetted Syrians. Military bases in Saudi Arabia could
potentially be used in support of joint operations. However, the presence of foreign military
forces in the kingdom historically has been a politically controversial subject.
Jordan54
The Obama Administration considers the kingdom of Jordan to be an important part of the anti-
Islamic State coalition. Jordan is one of the signatories of the recently-issued Jeddah
Communiqué that expressed regional Arab states’ commitment to stand united against the threat
posed by all terrorism, including the Islamic State. Many Jordanians likely fear that an overt
Jordanian presence in Iraq would give the Islamic State or radicalized Jordanian citizens further
cause to target the kingdom.
The Jordanian Air Force has conducted strikes in both Iraq and Syria. In mid-October, Special
Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL General John Allen expressed the

54 Prepared by Jeremy M. Sharp, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs. For more information, see CRS Report
RL33546, Jordan: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jeremy M. Sharp.
Congressional Research Service
15

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

Administration’s “support for the targeted airstrikes by the Jordanian Air Force in Syria.”55 Jordan
has approximately 85 combat aircraft, including at least 60 F-16s, and its fighters flew alongside
U.S. planes in striking the Islamic State’s front lines around the besieged Syrian city of Kobane.
However, it is unlikely that Jordanian contributions to any multilateral effort will consist of
ground forces.56
Jordan could make other contributions to U.S. efforts, such as intelligence sharing, continued
overt training of Iraq Special Forces, and possible clandestine training of Syrian rebels. Jordanian
intelligence was reportedly pivotal to the U.S. finding and killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the
Jordanian national who founded the Islamic State’s antecedent, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQ-I). Several
media reports suggest that Jordanian Special Operations forces assisted U.S. troops in an
unsuccessful attempt to rescue American journalist James Foley, who had been held captive by
the Islamic State prior to his recent execution. Politically, Jordan has ties to Sunni tribes in
Western Iraq who could be valuable partners in the fight against the Islamic State. Currently,
approximately 1,700 U.S. military personnel are stationed in Jordan, presumably to bolster its
security.57
Europe and Other Allies58
On the sidelines of NATO’s Wales Summit, held on September 4-5, the United States and United
Kingdom (U.K.) co-chaired a discussion on the Islamic State. NATO member countries France,
Germany, Canada, Turkey, Italy, Poland, and Denmark, and observer state Australia, reportedly
joined the United States and U.K. in agreeing to coordinate efforts to fight the group.59 The
alliance as a whole did not commit to a substantive response beyond stating in the summit
communique that it would consider any future request from the Iraqi government to launch a
training and capacity-building mission for Iraqi security forces.60 NATO previously conducted a
military training mission in Iraq from 2008-2011.
France hosted a meeting of foreign ministers from 26 countries (including European and Middle
Eastern countries as well as Russia and China), the Arab League, European Union, and U.N. on
September 15 that produced further pledges to defeat the Islamic State and provide military
assistance to the Iraqi government. Specific military commitments remain unclear, however.
France, Germany, and the U.K. have been providing weapons to Kurdish forces in Iraq, as well as
non-lethal equipment and humanitarian aid.61 European countries continue to rule out using
ground forces, but France announced it had begun reconnaissance flights over Iraq, and France
and the U.K. have been considering whether to join the United States in conducting airstrikes. As
in the United States, debates in these two countries encounter more difficult legal and political
questions in relation to possible strikes inside Syria.

55 U.S. State Department Press Release, “Remarks to the Press on Countering ISIL,” October 15, 2014.
56 “Allies Vow Support, Offer Few Specifics,” Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2014.
57 Elements of these forces include Patriot missile systems, fighter aircraft, and related support, command, control, and
communications personnel and systems.
58 Prepared by Derek Mix, Analyst in European Affairs.
59 Sam Jones, “NATO States to Form Military Coalition to Fight ISIS,” Financial Times, September 5, 2014.
60 Julian Hale, “NATO Weights Training Mission to Iraq,” Defense News, September 12, 2014.
61 “Hollande Visits Iraq Ahead of Paris Conference on Fighting Islamic State,” RFI, September 12, 2014; Noah Barkin,
“Defending Arming of Kurds, Merkel Calls Islamic State a Threat to Europe,” Reuters, September 1, 2014; and UK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, “Iraq: UK Government Response,” September 13, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
16

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

Iranian Involvement in the Iraq Crisis
Apparently pursuing its own interests, Iran has been generally cooperating with U.S. policy in
Iraq, but the United States has ruled out formally bringing Iran into any U.S.-led anti-Islamic
State coalition. It remains to be seen how Iran may respond to any expanded U.S. efforts to
provide support or training to Syrian opposition groups, which Iran may view as a threat to its
interests. On Syria, the United States and Iran have generally been on opposite sides: the United
States supports Asad’s ouster in favor of a transition regime, whereas Iran is materially supporting
Asad’s remaining in power.
On Iraq, however, Islamic State gains appeared to align the interests of Iran and the United States
in Iraq, but not in Syria. After the Islamic State capture of Mosul, Secretary of State John Kerry
stated that the United States was “open to discussions [with Iran on Iraq] if there’s something
constructive that can be contributed by Iran.”62 U.S. diplomats have reportedly discussed the
Islamic State crisis at margins of recent talks on Iran’s nuclear program. Iran abandoned its
longtime ally Maliki63 and helped compel him to yield power in favor of Hayder Al Abbadi. The
U.S. State Department has consistently refuted assertions that the bilateral discussion on Iraq
could provide Iran additional leverage in the ongoing nuclear talks with the United States and its
partner countries.64
In actions that appear to further U.S. objectives in Iraq, Iran reportedly has been delivering arms
and ammunition to Iraq and the peshmerga. In early July, Iran returned to Iraq about a dozen of
the 100+ Iraqi combat aircraft that were flown to Iran at the start of the 1991 war between Iraq
and the United States-led coalition. Iranian pilots apparently also are flying the aircraft: in July
2014 Iran announced that one of its pilots had died in operations in Iraq.65 Iran reportedly has
provided weapons to Syrian Kurds fighting Islamic State forces in northern Syria.
Many observers remain skeptical that that the United States could or should cooperate with Iran
in either Iraq or Syria. Iran helped establish many of the Shiite militias that fought the United
States during 2003-2011, and Iran reportedly has sent Islamic Revolutionary Guard-Qods Force
(IRGC-QF) personnel into Iraq to advise the Shiite militias fighting alongside the ISF. The
participation of the militias has increased tensions with Iraq’s Sunnis, including those who live in
mostly Shiite-inhabited Baghdad and in mixed provinces such as Diyala. Anecdotal reports
indicate that some Shiite militia fighters have carried out reprisals against Sunnis who the militias
accuse of supporting the Islamic State. Some of the Shiite militiamen who are fighting in Iraq had
returned from Syria, where they were helping President Asad against Sunni-led armed rebels. On
Syria, Iran continues to support Asad militarily, thereby countering U.S. efforts to compel Asad to
yield power to a transition regime.

62 Michael Gordon and David Sanger, “U.S. Is Exploring Talks with Iran on Crisis in Iraq,” New York Times, June 17,
2014.
63 Babak Dehghanpisheh, “Iran Dramatically Shifts Iraq Policy to Confront Islamic State,” Reuters, September 2, 2014.
64 Ibid.
65 “Iran News Agency Reports Death of Iranian Pilot in Iraq,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, July 5, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
17



Figure 1. Iraq, Syria, and Regional Unrest

Notes: Clash symbols in Syria and Iraq denote areas where recent clashes have occurred, not necessarily areas of current control.
CRS-18



Figure 2. Evolution of IS/ISIL and Extremist Groups in Iraq and Syria, 2002-2014


CRS-19

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

Selected Additional Issues Raised by the Crisis
Humanitarian Impact and Response66
An estimated 1.8 million people have been displaced in Iraq in 2014 creating an urgent
humanitarian crisis.67 The actual displacement figures remain fluid and impossible to fully
ascertain. Particularly in conflict areas in northern and central Iraq, it is difficult to monitor and
track the mass and sometimes multiple displacements. Of the 1.8 million Internally Displaced
Persons (IDPs), an estimated 850,000 are seeking shelter in Iraq’s Kurdistan region, while
increased movements to central and southern Iraq are straining the response capacities of host
communities.68 There is an immediate need for food, water, shelter, and health services.69 There
are also increasing concerns about the rise in sectarian tensions across the country made worse by
the conflict situation and large numbers of IDPs. Although the needs of all IDPs in Iraq remain
significant, civilians trapped in conflict-affected areas, whose access to basic services is curtailed
or non-existent, are considered to be in need of lifesaving humanitarian assistance.70 Recent
situations, such as those involving Sinjar Mountain and the siege of the town of Amerli, where
potential major humanitarian and human rights disasters were reportedly largely averted,
highlight the plight of IDPs, particularly those who are surrounded by Islamic State forces.
While national and international humanitarian efforts have been severely constrained in providing
assistance and protection to these IDPs, on August 13, 2014, the Special Representative of the
U.N. Secretary-General for Iraq, Mr. Nickolay Mladenov, announced that the United Nations had
declared a “Level 3 Emergency” for Iraq to help facilitate mobilization of resources for the
humanitarian response.71 With the Level 3 declaration, U.N. and humanitarian partners continue
to increase staffing and resources, but they are calling for guarantees of safe and unhindered
access of humanitarian staff and in the distribution of relief supplies.
The U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) is coordinating the humanitarian response by the
U.N. Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) and some partner organizations and with the U.N.
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA). UNOCHA launched a revised
Strategic Response Plan (SRP) for Iraq in June, requesting $312.1 million in funding to include
humanitarian support for the significantly increased caseload of IDPs and a wider geographical

66 This section was prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy.
67 In addition, there are reportedly more than 1.1 million Iraqis who were earlier displaced. Many had sought refuge in
Syria between 2003 and 2011 and are thought to remain displaced. There are also over 141,000 Iraqi refugees living in
other countries, according to the State Department on September 10, 2014. Although this section is focused primarily
on the situation in Iraq, displacements and movement of populations in Iraq are intertwined with the conflict in
neighboring Syria.
68 As of September 2, 2014, Iraq is hosting more than 215,000 refugees from Syria, of which 209,000 are in the
Kurdistan region and much smaller numbers are dispersed elsewhere in Iraq, including approximately 4,500 in Anbar
province.
69 Assessment Capacities Project, “Humanitarian Implications of Violence in Northern and Central Iraq,” September 4,
2014.
70 UNOCHA, “Iraq IDP Crisis: Situation Report No. 9,” August 23-29, 2014; UNOCHA, “Iraq: Displacement—
Humanitarian Snapshot,” August 28, 2014.
71 U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, Press Release, “U.N. Declares a ‘Level 3 Emergency’ for Iraq to Ensure More
Effective Humanitarian Response,” August 13, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
20

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

focus. Total U.S. government humanitarian funding to Iraq in FY2014 (as of September 10, 2014)
is more than $186 million.72
The U.N. Secretary-General issued a statement on August 7, 2014, condemning the attacks in Iraq
and the impact on vulnerable minority communities.73 The members of the U.N. Security Council
also issued a statement condemning the situation in Nineveh and urging the international
community to provide support to those in need. The Security Council reiterated that widespread
or systematic attacks directed against a civilian population because of their ethnic background or
political or religious beliefs could constitute a crime against humanity, and further, that all parties
must abide by international humanitarian law. It urged the parties to stop human rights violations
and enable humanitarian access and the delivery of assistance.74
Responses to Threats to U.S. Personnel, Facilities, and Citizens75
The crisis has prompted the Administration to undertake a number of measures to ensure the
safety of its personnel in Iraq, including direct military action, relocation of personnel, and
deployment of additional protective assets. The Department of State has also repeatedly warned
U.S. citizens unaffiliated with the U.S. government of the threats to their security.
President Obama affirmed on August 9 that the protection of American diplomats and military
personnel in the city of Irbil was among the principal justifications for conducting targeted
airstrikes against ISIL in the area. He also asserted that the United States would “take action” in
response to any further threat to U.S. facilities or personnel.76
A number of diplomatic personnel had previously been moved to the Consulate General in Irbil
from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. On June 15, the Department of State announced that while
the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad would remain open, a number of personnel would be “temporarily
relocated” to Consulate Generals in Basrah and Irbil as well as to Department of State facilities in
Amman, Jordan. The relocations were reportedly carried out by non-military means. The
announcement stated that a “substantial majority of the U.S. Embassy presence in Iraq” would
remain in place and that, with an expected addition of security personnel, the Embassy would be
“fully equipped” to carry out “its national security mission.”77 On August 10, the Iraq Travel
Warning was updated to announce that “a limited number” of additional staff had been relocated
from the Embassy in Baghdad and the Consulate General in Erbil to the Consulate General in
Basrah as well as to Department of State facilities in Amman, Jordan.78 Despite these measures,

72 U.S. Department of State, “United States Announces Additional Humanitarian Assistance for Iraq Crisis,” Fact
Sheet, September 10, 2014; USAID, “Iraq—Complex Emergency,” Fact Sheet #3, Fiscal Year (FY) 2014, August 28,
2014.
73 United Nations, New York, “Statement Attributable to the Spokesman for the Secretary-General on Attacks on
Yezidis and Other Minority Groups in Iraq,” August 7, 2014.
74 U.N. Security Council, Press Statement on Iraq, SC/11515, IK/683, August 7, 2014.
75 Prepared by Alex Tiersky, Analyst in Foreign Affairs. For more information on this issue, see CRS Insight IN10090,
Crisis in Iraq: Securing U.S. Citizens, Personnel, and Facilities, by Alex Tiersky. This section was last updated on
August 15, 2014.
76 The White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Statement by the President on Iraq,” press release, August 9, 2014,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/09/statement-president-iraq.
77 Department of State Spokesperson, “Press Statement: Iraq,” press release, June 15, 2014.
78 Department of State, “Iraq Travel Warning,” updated August 10, 2014, http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
21

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

President Obama on August 9 affirmed that “we’re not moving our embassy anytime soon. We’re
not moving our consulate anytime soon.”79
Military assets and personnel have played a key role in securing U.S. diplomatic facilities and
personnel in Iraq. News reports suggested that roughly 200 Marine Corps guards and contractors
were in place at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad prior to the crisis to protect the Embassy.80 Since
the crisis began, the White House has announced three deployments to reinforce that number. On
June 16, the White House informed Congress that up to approximately 275 U.S. military
personnel were being dispatched to Iraq to assist with the temporary relocation of diplomatic
personnel, a deployment undertaken with the consent of the Government of Iraq.81 On June 30,
the White House announced the deployment of up to an additional 200 U.S. Armed Forces
personnel to provide increased security to the U.S. Embassy and its support facilities, as well as
to reinforce the Baghdad International Airport. According to the White House notification to
Congress, provided “consistent with” the War Powers Act, the deployed forces would be
accompanied by helicopters and unmanned drones. The force “is deploying for the purpose of
protecting U.S. citizens and property, if necessary, and is equipped for combat,” according to the
statement, and may/will “remain in Iraq until the security situation becomes such that it is no
longer needed.”82 The Department of Defense had also previously confirmed that it “has airlift
assets at the ready should State Department request them, as per normal interagency support
arrangements.”83 On September 2, 2014, the Administration announced that an additional 350
U.S. military personnel would deploy to Iraq for similar purposes.
The State Department has also communicated with U.S. citizens in Iraq about threats to their
safety. It posted on June 16 an “Emergency Message for U.S. Citizens: Announcement of
Relocation of U.S. Embassy Staff,” which urged “U.S. citizens to avoid travel to Iraq because of
current safety and security concerns” and advised those concerned about their safety to “make
plans to depart by commercial means.” The statement emphasized that the Embassy should not be
contacted with requests for assistance with travel arrangements, and that the Embassy “does not
offer ‘protection’ services to individuals who feel unsafe.” While the Embassy remained open, the
statement said, Embassy services for U.S. citizens throughout Iraq would be limited due to the
security environment.84
A number of U.S. citizens working in various other capacities in Iraq have also been evacuated in
response to the crisis. For example, on June 12, the Department of State confirmed that a number
of U.S. citizen contract employees to the Iraqi Government, who were performing services in

(...continued)
english/alertswarnings/iraq-travel-warning.html.
79 The White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Statement by the President on Iraq,” press release, August 9, 2014,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/09/statement-president-iraq.
80 Dan Lamothe, “U.S. companies pulling contractors from Iraqi bases as security crumbles,” The Washington Post,
June 12, 2014.
81 The White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Statement by the Press Secretary on the War Powers Resolution
Report for Iraq,” press release, June 16, 2014.
82 The White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Letter from the President—War Powers Resolution Letter regarding
Iraq,” June 30, 2014.
83 “DOD Provides Security Help for Baghdad Diplomatic Facilities,” American Forces Press Service, June 15, 2014.
84 Department of State, “Emergency Message for U.S. Citizens: Announcement of Relocation of U.S. Embassy Staff,”
press release, June 16, 2014, http://iraq.usembassy.gov/em-06162014.html.
Congressional Research Service
22

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

connection with the U.S. Foreign Military Sales Program in Iraq, were “temporarily relocated” by
their companies due to security concerns.85
Possible Questions for Congressional
Consideration86

What are overall U.S. priorities in the strategy against the Islamic State organization, and how are
these priorities shaping the U.S. response?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the strategy against the Islamic State that have been
articulated by President Obama? What factors could hinder the implementation or effectiveness
of the strategy?
With respect to Iraq, is it realistic and worthwhile for U.S. officials and lawmakers to act in
expectation that Iraq’s government can resolve or manage the country’s sectarian, ethnic, and
regional differences?
Please assess the range of Iraqi Sunni views of the Islamic State. With respect to Iraq, what effect,
if any, has the replacement of Maliki by Haydar al-Abbadi had on Sunni Arab support for the
Islamic State? How have jihadist and tribal figures responded to the Islamic State’s declaration of
a caliphate in areas under its control?
With respect to Syria, to what extent, if any, is the long term success of U.S. strategy dependent
on any changes in the composition of the Syrian government? How have various Syrian forces
reacted to U.S. and coalition airstrikes since September 2014? How has the Syrian government
responded? If U.S. and coalition airstrikes shift from targeting Islamic State targets that facilitate
IS operations in Iraq to a broader campaign against the group and other extremists, how might
these reactions change?
How, if at all, should the effort against the Islamic State shape congressional consideration of
pending authorization and appropriations legislation for defense and foreign assistance?
To what extent do the Islamic State’s gains reflect its organizational capabilities? To what extent
to these gains reflect the weaknesses, divisions, or limitations of its adversaries?
What options are available for assisting locally organized forces in areas under Islamic State
control, or in areas threatened by the Islamic State, who may effectively resist or disrupt the
group’s operations? How might such options affect the willingness of the regional governments to
continue to cooperate with the United States?
To what extent do the interests of Iran and the United States conflict or coincide, with respect to
the Islamic State issue? To what extent, if any, do efforts by Iran to support Iraq’s government and

85 Department of State Deputy Spokesperson, Daily Press Briefing, June 12, 2014, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/
2014/06/227573.htm#IRAQ.
86 Prepared by Christopher Blanchard and Jim Zanotti, Specialists in Middle Eastern Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
23

The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S. Policy

Shiite militia forces contradict or support those of the United States? Please answer with respect
to Iran’s policy of supporting the Asad regime in Syria?
What are the connections, if any, between this crisis and other key regional issues, such as
international diplomacy on Iran’s nuclear program?
To what extent will the governments of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey support anti-Islamic
State entities in areas adjacent to their territory?
What might be the broader strategic implications of increased U.S. assistance to the current Iraqi
government? What has been the reaction of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states to
increased U.S. support for the Iraqi government, which the Gulf leaders assert is closely aligned
with Iran? How might Iran respond?
How are Kurdish efforts to control Kirkuk and its energy resources likely to affect the security
situation in that area generally and in Iraq specifically? What is the likelihood that the Kurds will
implement a formal secession from Iraq in the near future? How should these considerations
affect U.S. policy toward the KRG?
Are changes to U.S. global counterterrorism policies and practices necessary in light of
developments related to the Islamic State?
What are the humanitarian implications of the crisis? Please discuss the situation for Internally
Displaced Persons (IDPs), particularly those displaced in the last several months. What are the
most pressing assistance needs and priorities?
What are the challenges for an effective humanitarian response by the international community?
How would you assess the international humanitarian operation so far? What action is the U.S.
government taking in support of international humanitarian efforts?

Author Contact Information

Kenneth Katzman
Rhoda Margesson
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy
kkatzman@crs.loc.gov, 7-7612
rmargesson@crs.loc.gov, 7-0425
Christopher M. Blanchard
Alex Tiersky
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
cblanchard@crs.loc.gov, 7-0428
atiersky@crs.loc.gov, 7-7367
Carla E. Humud

Analyst in Middle Eastern and African Affairs
chumud@crs.loc.gov, 7-7314


Congressional Research Service
24