Middle East: over Mosul, Syria the middle again

Technically the battle for Mosul began with the advance of Iraqi special forces, supported US Air Force and flanked by Kurdish and Shiite militias. the final outcome of the battle and, therefore, the war to the caliphate in Iraq, there seems no doubt that the victory of Baghdad, and the US appears to be an inescapable fact. However, the time factor becomes essential, to reduce losses and to alleviate the difficulties of the population; Linked to this factor there is a real difficulty in capturing all members of the Islamic State, committed to defending Mosul, to prevent an escape to Syria or to the countries of origin. The numerical estimates on the extent of these fighters varies from 3,000 to 3,500 units. The Caliphate does not admit defections or desertions and some militia members, who would try to leave the city, would be executed. This particular indicates that the caliphate would be weakening in its military part, as it were traditional, but this could open new combat scenarios, such as greater use of traditional terrorist acts. In fact, this hypothesis seems to be supported by an increase in attacks in the Iraqi capital, often directed against Shiites, whom retaliation the advance towards Mosul. It is, undoubtedly, a strengthening of the part of the Islamic State terrorist strategy, a choice in which the caliphate is forced by the gradual removal of the sovereignty of the territories he had conquered, and that calls into question the very reason for its existence. The construction of a caliphate, as an autonomous and sovereign entity, able to impose its own legislation in support of an autonomous administration, was the main reason of the Islamic state, and also the one that differed from Al Qaeda. The loss of the territories on which it actually post ruled the Islamic state a terrorist organization like the other, with a loss of considerable prestige, and the use of the attacks only confirms this decline. This, however, does not make it any less dangerous to the caliphate: the angry reaction may also extend beyond the borders of the Middle East, especially in Europe, where the visibility of the attacks, could allow to regain something in terms of credibility, especially, in the environments more extremists. This eventuality is viewed with concern in Western chancelleries and one of the English authorities warning only confirms this scenario. If the conquest of Mosul is now certain that will happen, the complete defeat of the Islamic state is still far it will not be eradicated even from Syria, where he still retains the domain of some territories. The Iraqi situation is more clear and distinct and this has been the reason for the advance of Iraqi regular forces, representing the only official entity, although supported by key allies such as the Kurds and the Iranians, in the conflict against the caliphate. In Syria, however, the presence of a variety of subjects in the field and their conflicting interests, does not allow such clarity in the fight to the caliphate, which takes advantage of this situation to its survival. A more substantial presence in the country Syrian territory of the Islamic State, could constitute a basis for recruiting new militants and also a constant threat to the liberated Iraqi areas. One of the possibilities is that the Shiite militias, who have supported the Iraqi army could move against the forces of the caliphate in Syria; This solution would certainly be supported by the government in Damascus and its Russian allies, always in contact with Iran, another ally of Assad, that would be behind the fighters who helped the Baghdad government, made precisely by elements of Shia origin. This possibility can not be welcome in Washington, which supports the moderate Sunni forces opposed to Assad. Here you will weigh much the outcome of the American electoral competition, where, in case of victory of Clinton, the US could increase direct engagement to balance the Russian presence, materialized a complete reversal than decided until adores Obama. Clinton, in fact, has a reputation as interventionist in international affairs and has repeatedly criticized the outgoing American president for the way he conducted the Syrian issue. There is then, to consider the intentions of Turkey, whose government had expressed its intention to consider the Syrian and Iraqi areas beyond its borders, as a sort of its relevance, comparing them to what they represent to Moscow, the Crimea and Ukraine's eastern territories. For Erdogan it is always the desire to repeat, in the modern version, as shown from the Ottoman Empire, modern Turkey which it considers the legitimate heir. Moreover, the presence in Iraq of a Turkoman minority would push it to act, averting thus the public opinion from internal problems of the country. Turkey's position in the Syrian conflict, however, is ambiguous: until recently before Ankara was firmly opposed to expect at home to power of Assad, but when these have turned their weapons against the Kurds, they are open spaces of understanding, as well as the recovery the dialogue with the Kremlin has encouraged the emergence of a common strategy; it must be recalled that Turkey was one of the main suspects for financial support to the Islamic state and then his purposes are to be evaluated carefully. Against the background of a possible turkish intervention in Iraq, for now always refused to Baghdad, he remains the religious division between the two governments expression of Sunni and Shia denominations. To this must be added the Ankara away from Washington, an element that helps make the situation less clear. If the battle of Mosul, therefore, will mark the defeat of the caliphate in Iraq, not yet the end of the Caliphate: Syria becomes central in the Middle East conflict.