By By Ken Hanly Aug 15, 2014 in Politics Binghamton - In an interesting commentary titled "The Caliphate vs. Everyone Else", the renowned American sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein discusses the way in which the successful advance of the Islamic State forces has managed to alter alliances in the Middle East. Wallerstein notes that fear of the IS has united friend and foe. The US and Iran, the Kurds and Israel, the EU, and Syria's Assad are all united in opposition to IS. All are allied in stopping the IS from expanding or consolidating its gains. While The US is now heavily committed in Iraq with drones, bombing, almost 1,000 Marines and Special Forces. Obama has refused to indicate when US involvement might end. All of this is happening under a president who vowed a total withdrawal from Iraq as a prime promise when he assumed the presidency. Iran and the US have a common goal of defeating IS. Wallerstein asks who benefits and who might lose from this sudden re-alignment of forces. A second winner according to Wallerstein is Bashar al-Assad. While up to a point Assad seemed actually to tolerate IS as it at first took territory already occupied by other rebels and also fought with other rebels, lately IS has fought bitter battles with Assad forces and also Kurds in Syria. Assad will be happy to see the US attack IS forces and weaken them. Perhaps he may invite US air power to bomb IS in Syria! It is possible that if IS is defeated in Iraq they will do a tactical retreat into Syria and mount operations into Iraq from there. What will the US do then? The third winner are the Kurds, according to Wallerstein. He is surely correct about this. Support from the US and the receipt of direct arms will enable them to consolidate or even advance their situation in Iraq. Relations are also approving with Kurds in Syria who are also facing attacks from IS. The peshmerga can only grow stronger and more effective from the help they are receiving. I should add that the Kurds will also make immense gains towards achieving independence. Wallerstein thinks that the US is a clear loser. He thinks that the US will become involved in a quagmire that will be a domestic political liability since the US public only supports success. This may happen but if IS suffers significant defeats Obama may be able to spin this as a resounding success even though other problems will no doubt pop up and IS forces are unlikely to be vanquished in a short period of time. Wallerstein is not clear about whether Iran, Hamas, or Russia will be winners or losers. Iran could gain in that if the US can deal with Iran on Iraq then perhaps they can deal with them on the nuclear issue. Perhaps the dangers of the Caliphate could lead Israel to deal with Hamas. However, Hamas could also be portrayed as itself a radical Islamist group to be weakened and hence there would be more pressure to try and replace them with the Palestinian Authority and Abbas. Finally, Wallerstein thinks that Russia could gain from the situation in that the strong push for humanitarian aid to the Yazidis and Christians in Iraq comes into conflict with the situation in Eastern Ukraine where Ukrainian forces surround rebel cities, shell them, and starve them into submission. If the United States and western Europe are in favor of humanitarian aid in one place, can they sustain the position of being against it in the other? The answer to that is clearly yes. Wallerstein has been senior research scholar at Yale University since 2000. His bimonthly commentaries are syndicated. He is known as a promoter of the world's systems approach to analysis of world events.Wallerstein notes that fear of the IS has united friend and foe. The US and Iran, the Kurds and Israel, the EU, and Syria's Assad are all united in opposition to IS. All are allied in stopping the IS from expanding or consolidating its gains.While some geopolitical conflicts appear unaltered by these events such as that between Israel and Gaza or between the Ukraine and Russia, in other areas there has been radical change. In Iraq the US has United with Iran, the Kurds, and even the Grand Ayatollah ali-Sistani to force al-Maliki to give up his quest for a third term as Iraqi prime minister. All of this has happened in the short space of the first half of August.The US is now heavily committed in Iraq with drones, bombing, almost 1,000 Marines and Special Forces. Obama has refused to indicate when US involvement might end. All of this is happening under a president who vowed a total withdrawal from Iraq as a prime promise when he assumed the presidency. Iran and the US have a common goal of defeating IS. Wallerstein asks who benefits and who might lose from this sudden re-alignment of forces. Wallerstein argues that the Caliphate or IS is the first short term winner. At first sight this seems counter-intuitive since IS will face bombings by the US and better-armed Kurds as they try to advance into their territories. However, Wallerstein points out that IS can now represent itself as the main Islamic counter-force to "the devil incarnate, the United States". Wallerstein has a point and its truth is shown by the many foreign fighters who are rallying to the iS cause much to the consternation of many western countries where politicians and ordinary citizens are blind to any appeal the jihadist project might have as IS demonizing precludes any focus other than the horrible savagery and immorality of the group. Conflict with the US will bring in other recruits as well. Wallerstein admits that this gain may be short lived if IS suffers military reverses. He thinks that it may take some time for this to occur if it ever does. I expect that it will and in not too long a time although this may cause new problems. If the Kurds for example take new territory as they already had after IS first advance when Kurds occupied Kirkuk and area, there could be more conflict with the Iraqi government and demands for independence.A second winner according to Wallerstein is Bashar al-Assad. While up to a point Assad seemed actually to tolerate IS as it at first took territory already occupied by other rebels and also fought with other rebels, lately IS has fought bitter battles with Assad forces and also Kurds in Syria. Assad will be happy to see the US attack IS forces and weaken them. Perhaps he may invite US air power to bomb IS in Syria! It is possible that if IS is defeated in Iraq they will do a tactical retreat into Syria and mount operations into Iraq from there. What will the US do then?The third winner are the Kurds, according to Wallerstein. He is surely correct about this. Support from the US and the receipt of direct arms will enable them to consolidate or even advance their situation in Iraq. Relations are also approving with Kurds in Syria who are also facing attacks from IS. The peshmerga can only grow stronger and more effective from the help they are receiving. I should add that the Kurds will also make immense gains towards achieving independence.Wallerstein thinks that the US is a clear loser. He thinks that the US will become involved in a quagmire that will be a domestic political liability since the US public only supports success. This may happen but if IS suffers significant defeats Obama may be able to spin this as a resounding success even though other problems will no doubt pop up and IS forces are unlikely to be vanquished in a short period of time.Wallerstein is not clear about whether Iran, Hamas, or Russia will be winners or losers. Iran could gain in that if the US can deal with Iran on Iraq then perhaps they can deal with them on the nuclear issue. Perhaps the dangers of the Caliphate could lead Israel to deal with Hamas. However, Hamas could also be portrayed as itself a radical Islamist group to be weakened and hence there would be more pressure to try and replace them with the Palestinian Authority and Abbas.Finally, Wallerstein thinks that Russia could gain from the situation in that the strong push for humanitarian aid to the Yazidis and Christians in Iraq comes into conflict with the situation in Eastern Ukraine where Ukrainian forces surround rebel cities, shell them, and starve them into submission. Wallerstein notes:The answer to that is clearly yes. This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com More about Immanuel Wallerstein, Islamic Caliphate, IS in Syria and Iraq Immanuel Wallerstein Islamic Caliphate IS in Syria and Iraq