The Importance Of Cutting Off The ISIS Oil Network

on November 19, 2015 at 4:36 PM

U.S. Federal Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Following the horrific events that transpired in Paris last Friday evening, the world’s eyes have turned on the salient global threat of ISIS. The group’s rise to prominence has been well documented given their barbaric attacks on Westerners kidnapped in Iraq and Syria. They have also claimed responsibility for the bombing of a commercial Russian airliner over Egyptian air space on October 31st.  The attacks on Friday gave the world a chilling glimpse into the scope of ISIS’ organisation and resources stretching from their territory in Syria and Northern Iraq to Western Europe.

In the wake of the attacks, Western leaders have alluded of the need for a cohesive multilateral military and political effort to defeat ISIS. A crucial factor in weakening ISIS will be cutting off the group’s access to copious oil supplies from fields in Eastern Syria and Northern Iraq. Last Friday’s attacks demonstrated the financial resources available to ISIS, most of which comes from selling oil on the black market to independent traders. They make approximately $1.53 million a day off their current oil network. This is a staggering amount of revenue for a terrorist group operating outside the jurisdiction of any transnational organisation. Given that their oil revenues directly funded the attacks in Paris and the added factor of their ability to radicalise disaffected youths in Western Europe, it is of tantamount importance that the group’s oil network is cut off.

Whether this can occur without a ground invasion remains open to debate as France will plead to the United States to consider increasing its military involvement in the region. There is no denying ISIS needs to be eradicated given the extent of their threat and the brutality of their acts, but the U.S. has already caused irrepressible damage in the region following the 2003 Iraq invasion. This cataclysmic foreign policy decision has indirectly led to the sheer existence and thriving of ISIS. A U.S. led ground invasion could further destablise the region and intensify the resolve of ISIS to carry out further attacks against innocent bystanders. The brutal nature of the attacks and ISIS’ wider campaign gives credence to the argument that a ground invasion is necessary but Obama’s prudent policy so far reinforces the notion the errors of the previous Administration resonate strongly in his decision making.

Continuing with air strikes and specifically targeting ISIS’ oil fields will vastly reduce their revenue to fund future campaigns.