After half a century of stasis, there are big new strategic realities in the Middle East, but people are having trouble getting their heads around them. Take the United States, for example. Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State in President Obama's first administration, is still lamenting her former boss' failure to send more military aid to "moderate" rebels in Syria.
"The failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled," Clinton told Atlantic magazine. She's claiming that early and lavish military aid to the right people would have overthrown Syria's dictator, Bashar al-Assad, while freezing the al Qaida/ISIS jihadis out. If only.
Clinton travels a lot, but she never leaves the Washington bubble. There are intelligence officials there who would gladly explain to her that almost all the desirable weaponry sent to the "moderates" in Syria ends up in the hands of the jihadis, who either buy it or just take it, but she wouldn't listen. It falls outside the "consensus".
Yet that really is how ISIS acquires most of its heavy weapons. The most striking case of that was in early June, when the Iraqi army, having spent US$41.6 ($49) billion in the past three years on training its troops and equipping them with US heavy weapons, ran away from Mosul and northern Iraq and handed a good quarter of them over to ISIS.
In fact, that's the weaponry that is now enabling ISIS to conquer further territory in eastern Syria and in Iraqi Kurdistan. Which, in turn, is why Barack Obama has now authorised airstrikes in Iraq to stop ISIS troops from over-running Irbil, the Kurdish capital.