The United States has said that the declaration by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) of a caliphate covering the territories under its control in Iraq and Syria is just nonsense. It has "no meaning," according to the State Department. "We have seen these types of words from ISIL before," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said at a press conference. "This declaration has no meaning for the people in Iraq and Syria," she said, adding that the militants -- who have now renamed their group the Islamic State -- were just trying "to control people by fear." White House press secretary, John Earnest, also condemned the declaration. "ISIL is not fighting for a stronger Iraq. ISIL is fighting to destroy Iraq. And that's why you've seen this administration work closely with Iraq's political leaders to encourage them to unite the country as they confront this existential threat," spokesman Josh Earnest said. CBS News reported that the declaration of the caliphate "could trigger a wave of infighting among the Sunni militant factions that formed a loose alliance in the blitz across Iraq". "Now the insurgents in Iraq have no excuse for working with ISIL (also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or ISIL) if they were hoping to share power with ISIL," Aymenn al-Tamimi, an analyst specialised in Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, told CBS. "The prospect of infighting in Iraq is increased for sure." Al-Tamimi added in an interview with the McClathcy News Service that the creation of the caliphate was actually not a surprise. "This caliphate was de facto for months before the official announcement," he said, noting that many aspects of Islamic law, or sharia, had already been imposed in areas under ISIL control. He referred specifically to the collection of jizya, a tax on Christians, and to ISIL's referring to its flag as the "banner of Khalifah" or caliphate in Arabic. J.M. Burger of the Daily Beast, however, saw a method to the ISIL madness. "It's arguably the boldest move yet by the group, which renamed itself simply The Islamic State," he wrote. "But if ISIL isn't careful, this could be the moment when all of its gains in Iraq and Syria are squandered; when would-be allies are alienated; and when the group's critics within the jihadi community were proven right all along." Burger argued that one factor, which could work in ISIL's favour is U.S. intervention. Such a move would confer legitimacy on the militant group, and a "potential new line of jihadist argument then emerges: The caliphate was restored, but it was directly destroyed by the United States." Dan Murphy of the Christian Science Monitor, who has covered the region for many years, argues that the declaration of the Caliphate could speed up the destruction of ISIL. But he also says that the current situation shows how little the American government has learned about the realities of Iraq. "Obama has said that Iraq 'must' have an inclusive government," Murphy wrote. "John Kerry has done likewise in person with Mr. Maliki and, strangely, has ventured to the Gulf monarchies like Saudi Arabia to appeal to them to exert their influence over Maliki (That is an influence they do not possess; Maliki despises the Sunni Gulf monarchs and the feeling is mutual). "But no matter how powerful this hope that some magic concoction of political forces will create a desire for 'inclusion' and 'reconciliation', it doesn't make it possible. Reports that the US has been reaching out to Ahmad Chalabi – a long-time Iranian intelligence asset who is loathed by Iraq's Sunni Arabs for his role in creating and running the post-2003 de-Baathification programme – shows how far the Obama administration is at sea, like the Bush administration before it, when it comes to Iraqi realities."
