Worst case ISIS Scenario?

[SealTheRealDeal]

Baghdad is attacked, IIRC that was Iran's red line which would trigger direct intervention on the ground. Gulf States decide that ISIS is less threatening than a formalization and militarization of the Shia Crescent and attack Iran. ISIS manages to thrive in the chaos of a region-wide total war.

 

[walmart]

Baghdad used to be part of the Sunni Triangle before the 2003 invasion. Following the fall of Saddam, the Shiites 'convinced' the Sunnis to move out, and for the duration of the American occupation, many of Baghdad's neighborhoods were ghost towns. It would be a simple matter of genocide to fix that.

They'd have to take it to commit genocide. Any attempt to take Baghdad is going to lead a massive siege and drain on ISIS resources.Unlike Mosul the defenders are won't be isolated and outnumbered in a hostile city. No Shia will be running or surrendering, every Shia part of Baghdad will have to be taken by force .An siege on this scale is going to impossible for such a lightly armed force and outnumbered force.

As for Saudi Arabia, while the positions of power are indeed protected, the people are vulnerable to ISIS ideology. After all, many ISIS fighters were disaffected Saudis, and thus would find connections with the locals. They're both Wahhabist, after all.

So ? There a lot of foreign fighters in ISIS, doesn't mean every nation they are from is on the verge of civil war.

so can protect them should the Army fail, but there would still be a massive uprising, especially considering the failing economy and lack of prospects for the average Saudi.

Unemployment of 5.7 percent in 2014 , a gdp of 21185, and a HDI of 0.852 . Not exactly conditions for a civil war
https://tradingeconomics.com/saudi-arabia/gdp-per-capita
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/saudi-arabia/unemployment-rate
https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/saudi-arabia

They're not going to take a lot to rile up.

If that had been the case,Then they would revolted in 2011 during the Arab spring

 

[LouisTheGreyFox]

It would be a nightmare for the Yazidis since ISIS has literally genocide (still doing it I believe) against them. In a worst case scenario the Yazidis are fucked and might become displaced and flee across the Middle East into Israel, Turkey, and Iran.

 

[Tehshudge]

Pakistani living in Saudi Arabia here.

I have doubts about ISIS getting that far into Saudi Arabia. Any kind of thrust towards Riyadh will run into resistance from King Khalid Military City and if ISIL does threaten and/or somehow capture Makkah and Madinah they will be hammered down upon by irate Muslim countries' armed forces and a US-led intervention faster than you can say "1942-1945".

There's no way they even make it that far. In my scenario they don't even make it that far beyond the border (despite the Gulf State militaries faring as well as one might expect). Any ISIS force that makes it within a day's travel of Madinah would get turned into a crater.

 

[LouisTheGreyFox]

It is very possible that ISIS in this worst case scenario might end up creating terrorist attacks in Latin America like in Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil. Especially Brazil since the 2016 Summer Olympics would be a easy target for ISIS to launch an attack, plus there was someone arrested for trying to plot one in fact if I can remember correctly.

Also having ISIS having biological and more deadly chemical weapons could allow them to expand more. Especially shit like anthrax.

If ISIS uses anthrax in populated areas, it will cause so much chaos that much of the military will be stuck in a tough situation on trying to prevent the further spread of disease and trying to prevent ISIS from gaining more territory. This would basically allow ISIS to expand faster since it be causing a lot of distractions from how I can see it.

 

[sloreck]

Anthrax does not spread any further than the spores are - it is not transmitted person to person except on rather exceptional circumstances. If ISIS uses biological weapons on the USA, perhaps the Army will be busy at home but the USAF and Naval Aviation will be very busy.

 

[Kriegdämmerung]

Everyone's scenarios seem so...limited. A quick thought on how truly nasty we could get it:

Middle East:
-Lighting drives into Iraq and Syria get farther than OTL, with Daesh entering Baghdad in triumph in 2014, and Damascus just before the end of the year
-The Assad regime flees to Latakia, where Russian support keeps Daesh from getting a Mediterranean coast (in Syria); the opposition mostly crumbles or retreats into Turkey or Jordan (although Rojava remains, albeit barely, and sans Kobane)
-The al-Maliki government continues to support a Shi'a insurgency from exile in Tehran, most of southern Iraq is in anarchy; the Kurds hold out with international support in the north, although several Daesh offensives get close to, and even besiege Erbil
-Jordan and Lebanon have essentially collapsed; in Jordan much of the north is under de facto Daesh control, and many of the Palestinian camps in and around Amman have been infiltrated, although the monarchy remains in control generally; Lebanon has essentially lost control of the area in and around Tripoli, and some neighborhoods in Beirut have been leveled in the infighting (not quite civil war level bad, but...not great)
-Daesh has also seized territory in Yemen in the Hadhramut, taking advantage of the civil war there, and routinely strikes into the Dhofar and southern Yemen; Aden has been held by, and liberated from, Daesh forces a few times
-Saudi Arabia and Turkey both claim to have complete control over their borders, unofficially, long stretches of desert and mountains aren't great at keeping people out; there are rumors of Daesh-sympathizers in the country, let alone, in the armed forces...

North Africa:
-Much of Cyrenacia in Libya has fallen under the control of Daesh, and the Egypt-Libya border is awash with pro- and anti- Daesh forces clashing, expansion further south into the Fezzan has continued, albeit slowly
-Daesh remained active in the Sinai, although failed to hold any serious territory; suppressing the uprising required previously unprecedented Egyptian and Israeli coordination
-Following this, and the chaos in West Africa (see below), Libya-Tripoli, Tunisia, and Algeria are swamped with refugees; this has not done wonders for democracy in post-Arab Spring North Africa...

West Africa:
-The decision of groups in the Sahel to align with Daesh (as opposed to al-Qaida as in OTL) saw a reproduction of the lightning tactics that felled Iraq/Syria in Mali and Niger, with both states having their leadership having fled to Paris
-With a solid base in the region, Daesh holds significant territory in Mauritania (possibly the next to fall), Burkina Faso (giving Mauritania a run for its money), southern Algeria, and most of the Lake Chad area; there are serious concerns about Daesh in Libya and Daesh in West Africa managing to connect in Niger or Chad
-Nigeria north of Abuja remains nightmarish, with the Daesh-aligned Boko Haram having funding and manpower to make things unpleasant, the Nigerian "Emergency Government" has considered instituting "free fire" zones in the north; not many are thinking to stop them...

Central Asia:
-The Taliban was unable to reform following the announcement of Mullah Omar's death, and Daesh has filled the void, with much of eastern and southern Afghanistan now under the control of new Islamic State
-All of the Central Asian states have seen had least one Daesh attack, and there are worries about supporters having infiltrated the armed forces...

South(east) Asia:
-From the chaos in Afghanistan, many elements of the Tehrik-i Taliban have aligned with the Daesh government based in Kandahar; much of FATA and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have fallen, Balochistan may be next on the list (the CPEC is deader than the Hazaras)
-A political crisis in 2015, aided by worse fallout from Cyclone Komen, saw a Daesh-friendly coup take over Bangladesh; the resulting government has prompted its own nightmare of a refugee situation, destabilizing Assam in India, and Rakhine in Myanmar
-In regards to that latter one, the Myanmar military proved completely unable to handle a genuine terrorist threat, although they certainly proved willing to torch everything they could get their hands on...not a great strategy
-The Bangasmoro Movement and Daesh found plenty of common ground; suppressing Mindanao was a trans-Pacific venture, as was putting down uprisings from Sabah to Banda Aceh...

 

[Barry Bull]

Anthrax does not spread any further than the spores are - it is not transmitted person to person except on rather exceptional circumstances. If ISIS uses biological weapons on the USA, perhaps the Army will be busy at home but the USAF and Naval Aviation will be very busy.

Yep, anthrax is actually pretty difficult to spread. Lay person tends to overestimate the effectiveness of biological weapons. Unless ISIS managed to produce weaponized smallpox and introduce that to USA, biological attacks would resemble what happened after 911, i.e. very limited exposure.

It is very possible that ISIS in this worst case scenario might end up creating terrorist attacks in Latin America like in Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil. Especially Brazil since the 2016 Summer Olympics would be a easy target for ISIS to launch an attack, plus there was someone arrested for trying to plot one in fact if I can remember correctly.

Also having ISIS having biological and more deadly chemical weapons could allow them to expand more. Especially shit like anthrax.

If ISIS uses anthrax in populated areas, it will cause so much chaos that much of the military will be stuck in a tough situation on trying to prevent the further spread of disease and trying to prevent ISIS from gaining more territory. This would basically allow ISIS to expand faster since it be causing a lot of distractions from how I can see it.

Someone in Middle East tends to stick out like a needle in Latin America and the no. of possible new recruits in Brazil is very small. Anthrax is really not that useful against military forces as one has to be quite close to the spores to get infected and just spreading a bunch of spores in the air is not a very effective way to spread it.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Reasonable bad case scenario I just recalled. ISIS controlled the Mosul Dam for about 10 days. Assume that they are able to be enough more successful that no immediate counteroffensive is possible and capture enough skilled individuals to run the dam. They can then turn off power flow from the dam and shut the outflow to build up the reservoir. Once that gets full, they have a weapon of MAD, push too hard and they bust the dam and 1.5 million people are in the danger zone. It will make the refugee crisis much worse if they are evacuated, if not ISIS wracks up a death toll a full order of magnitude greater

Of course the dam could just collapse on its own if they hold it long term and don't have the skills needed to maintain it, needs constant maintenance due to the shitty rock it is built on

 

[Zwinglian]

If ISIS tries to take Baghdad Iran fully joins the war and ISIS are pretty screwed

 

[sloreck]

IMHO if this turns in to a full on Sunni vs Shia fight (ISIS vs Iran at the center) the blood will flow in rivers. Iranian regular units may be under control, but the Basiji, no way. ISIS already has no limits, and the civilian militias on both sides of a Sunni-Shia fight will be completely without limits. If it goes that way, while acts of terror against Israel and the west will continue with lone wolves of random groups, all of ISIS' attention wil be focused elsewhere.

 

[Darksoul2142]

Everyone's scenarios seem so...limited. A quick thought on how truly nasty we could get it:

Middle East:
*snip*
North Africa:
*snip*
West Africa:
*snip*
Central Asia:
*snip*

South(east) Asia:

(1) -From the chaos in Afghanistan, many elements of the Tehrik-i Taliban have aligned with the Daesh government based in Kandahar; much of FATA and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have fallen, Balochistan may be next on the list (the CPEC is deader than the Hazaras)

(2) -A political crisis in 2015, aided by worse fallout from Cyclone Komen, saw a Daesh-friendly coup take over Bangladesh; the resulting government has prompted its own nightmare of a refugee situation, destabilizing Assam in India, and Rakhine in Myanmar
*snip*

Going to reply to the numbered points above.

(1) While there are extremist elements in Pakistan they do not have enough support, manpower and materiel to take over even one city much less one province. Yes they can create havoc in the form of a suicide bombing spree and other terror attacks e.g. Army Public School attack but that is the worst that they can do. Any attempts to take over territory and terror attacks of any kind will be met with a military operation that would make Operation Zarb-e-Azb seem like a gentle massage.

The main reasons for the Iraqi military collapse in 2014 was the lack of quality leadership and esprit de corps. This would be in direct contrast to Pakistan's armed forces which has high morale and receives strong support from its population. The best way to view ISIL's campaign in Pakistan would be akin to a bad high fever, you (Pakistan) will feel like you are dying for 2-3 days but recovery is rapid near the end.

Also, CPEC is far too important to Pakistan and China for it to be stopped as it would play a major part in reinvigorating Pakistan's economy, provide a significantly shorter route to the Middle East and consequently Africa for both trading/economic and military purposes.

(2) Once again a Bangladeshi coup, especially one of an extremist Islam nature, wouldn't last long as India would simply not tolerate an ISIL/JMB/JI-B held Bangladesh bordering it. However you are right about the refugee problem which would be nightmarish.

 

[Darzin]

I think the worst case scenario for ISIS involves postponing US intervention. When ISIS seized Mosul the were immensely powerful they'd captured a ton of modern Iraqi equipment and their moral was sky high. But soon after the US launched their intervention and ISIS lost most of their vehicle and offensive capability.

So what were the triggers for the US intervention? ISIS threatening Erbil, Attacking Kobane, and executing some Western hostages. If they don't do that US intervention is postponed, the US will intervene sooner or later but pushing it back a few months gives ISIS those months to take territory. ISIS has plenty of enemies so if they exercise some restraint with their hostages there are plenty of places they can launch offensives. Mainly the Syrian rebels, if the leaders of ISIS decide on a Sunni Arab strategy, bringing all the areas with Sunni Arab majorities under their control there is a place they can go to increase their strength and trigger the intervention of no one, the rebel held areas of Syria. Russia and Assad won't stop them as ISIS has much less international support so it will be easier to fight them then the rebels and who else is going to intervene? Instead of having all their vehicles blown up by the US they can use them to great effect against the rebels. I think with the forces they had available after the fall of Mosul they'll be able to sweep in and conquer Idlib and Aleppo and grow in strength by picking up large numbers of defectors from the rebel rank and file.

The problem is once they do that they are stuck as anywhere they go will trigger the intervention of a power with an air force, if the press towards, Erbil, Baghdad or Damascus someone is going to bomb them and destroy their offensive capability. So I think taking the rebel areas is as far as they can get without being ASB, but if they do that it probably adds a year or two to the existence of their "Caliphate" as they have more time to dig and organize their state and also more soldiers to defeat and more territory to reconquer.

 

[Alanith]

Reasonable bad case scenario I just recalled. ISIS controlled the Mosul Dam for about 10 days. Assume that they are able to be enough more successful that no immediate counteroffensive is possible and capture enough skilled individuals to run the dam. They can then turn off power flow from the dam and shut the outflow to build up the reservoir. Once that gets full, they have a weapon of MAD, push too hard and they bust the dam and 1.5 million people are in the danger zone. It will make the refugee crisis much worse if they are evacuated, if not ISIS wracks up a death toll a full order of magnitude greater

Of course the dam could just collapse on its own if they hold it long term and don't have the skills needed to maintain it, needs constant maintenance due to the shitty rock it is built on

I suspect something like that would see Seal Team Six or Delta Force or some other counter terror force going in.

 

[Historyman 14]

Reasonable bad case scenario I just recalled. ISIS controlled the Mosul Dam for about 10 days. Assume that they are able to be enough more successful that no immediate counteroffensive is possible and capture enough skilled individuals to run the dam. They can then turn off power flow from the dam and shut the outflow to build up the reservoir. Once that gets full, they have a weapon of MAD, push too hard and they bust the dam and 1.5 million people are in the danger zone. It will make the refugee crisis much worse if they are evacuated, if not ISIS wracks up a death toll a full order of magnitude greater

Of course the dam could just collapse on its own if they hold it long term and don't have the skills needed to maintain it, needs constant maintenance due to the shitty rock it is built on

Destroying the Mosul Dam would crippled Iraq for a whole generation, death toll in the tens of thousands to even over a million. Iraq becomes 1990s Somalia 2.0.

 

[Kotka]

Destroying the Mosul Dam would crippled Iraq for a whole generation, death toll in the tens of thousands to even over a million. Iraq becomes 1990s Somalia 2.0.

Indeed, during early 2017 it was reported that if the dam had collapse Mosul would've been wiped away by a 30m wave that would've killed more than a million people.

 

[Kriegdämmerung]

Going to reply to the numbered points above.

Oh, completely agree to both of those points. In terms of 1, the idea was basically to recreate the situation that led to Zarb-e Azb, fully knowing that it would end spectacularly poorly. As for 2, do wonder the appetite of the Indian Army for urban combat in a metropolitan area of nearly 20 million people...let alone the efficiency.

 

[Kotka]

Everyone's scenarios seem so...limited. A quick thought on how truly nasty we could get it:

Middle East:
-Lighting drives into Iraq and Syria get farther than OTL, with Daesh entering Baghdad in triumph in 2014, and Damascus just before the end of the year
-The Assad regime flees to Latakia, where Russian support keeps Daesh from getting a Mediterranean coast (in Syria); the opposition mostly crumbles or retreats into Turkey or Jordan (although Rojava remains, albeit barely, and sans Kobane)
-The al-Maliki government continues to support a Shi'a insurgency from exile in Tehran, most of southern Iraq is in anarchy; the Kurds hold out with international support in the north, although several Daesh offensives get close to, and even besiege Erbil
-Jordan and Lebanon have essentially collapsed; in Jordan much of the north is under de facto Daesh control, and many of the Palestinian camps in and around Amman have been infiltrated, although the monarchy remains in control generally; Lebanon has essentially lost control of the area in and around Tripoli, and some neighborhoods in Beirut have been leveled in the infighting (not quite civil war level bad, but...not great)
-Daesh has also seized territory in Yemen in the Hadhramut, taking advantage of the civil war there, and routinely strikes into the Dhofar and southern Yemen; Aden has been held by, and liberated from, Daesh forces a few times
-Saudi Arabia and Turkey both claim to have complete control over their borders, unofficially, long stretches of desert and mountains aren't great at keeping people out; there are rumors of Daesh-sympathizers in the country, let alone, in the armed forces...

Is a takeover of the Gaza strip or a war between Hamas and ISIS realistic?

 

[Darksoul2142]

Oh, completely agree to both of those points. In terms of 1, the idea was basically to recreate the situation that led to Zarb-e Azb, fully knowing that it would end spectacularly poorly. As for 2, do wonder the appetite of the Indian Army for urban combat in a metropolitan area of nearly 20 million people...let alone the efficiency.

Well it would be an excuse for certain groups in India to put pressure on the government to intervene for the security of Indian citizens and to anne- *cough* administer Bangladeshi territory until (read: many years) it is safe for handover to previous legitimate government of Bangladesh.