The advance on the ISIS strongholds in the Mesopotamian river valley in Iraq and Syria continues to draw a concerned reaction from sunni media outlets and commentators.

One popular comparison I have read on an Al-Jazeera message board likens the siege of Fallujah with Gaza, with the shia-led Iraqi forces as Israelis. On the channel itself, analysts have expressed their fears that the siege is part of a wider conspiracy to change the sunni demographic south of the Euphrates and east of the Tigris. Al-Jazeera also runs daily reports on the deployment of shia of militias around Fallujah, pairing these stories with those on the displacement of families by the siege. This supports the idea of ethnic cleansing.

Over the last 13 years there have been forced movements of sunni and shia populations. Much of this was within Baghdad – across the Adhamiya-Kadhimiya divide for example. These movements were forced by the unregulated militia or terrorist groups, both sunni and shia. By deploying shia militia and Iranian forces, it is certainly true that the government is exacerbating an ethnic dimension to the Fallujah siege, where the focus of their attention – ISIS – is an exclusively sunni group.

Nevertheless, I cannot believe this ethnic component has any long term implications for the human geography of al-Anbar. In the previous two Fallujah conflicts since 2004, sunni families have left and returned, and there was no movement by outside groups to appropriate the land. The governorate is historically sunni, it contains little of Iraq’s economic resources, and no sites of shia religious interest. Importantly, the Iraqi government is in the driving seat, with the world’s attention focused on their performance. It is highly unlikely that the government would permit any form of long-term displacement, unless perhaps through negligence.

On a more regional note, wherever sunni communities are affected by the conflict to destroy ISIS, observers in peripheral sunni countries are placed in a dilemma depending on what kind of regime is in power. ISIS or al-Qaeda can be called a threat to stability in countries where there is a reasonable prospect of installing a sunni government, such as Yemen or a federal Syria. In countries where there is no foreseeable prospect of a sunni government however, such as Iraq, observers may be tempted to equate ISIS with a legitimate form of resistance. This cannot be done overtly, since it would jeopardize too many critical, western relationships. Instead, ISIS becomes a bogeyman, created by the west (in conspiracy with Iran) to permit aggression against sunni populations.

Interestingly, it also involves in the naming of the organization. The term daesh is used by Kurds, shia and some in the West, so it is not acceptable. To call it the Islamic State in media would imply tacit endorsement – a term too legitimate and threatening to existing sunni regimes. Instead, the term The Islamic State Organisation is adopted as compromise. The root of the word ‘organization’ in Arabic has etymological associations with the concept of ‘regime’.